willkie after 1940. >> david, what was your grandfather's legacy? >> there were many aspects to his legacy. certainly, the talk about commerce, and to the caller's point, do politics and business have a place at the same table, coming together? as we look at the economic times that we have, i would argue definitely yes. that is part of the legacy. there is also the legacy of race relations and thinking about what it means to be a citizen of the world and understand how the rest of the world affects us here in places like indiana. i would argue, yes, it can happen again. he is a game changer.

count on it. he is not the left will keep. >> the author of "the forgotten man." james madison, prof. of history at indiana university. david willkie, the grandson of, wendell willkie. we thank the russellville historical society for letting us conduct this program here. as we look typical life and career of wendell willkie, a passed away in the fall of 1944. >> window welty, republican candidate for the presidency of the united states in 1940, taken suddenly at age 52. dominated by popular acclaim, wendell willkie won the admiration of all his countrymen for his energy, policy, and forthright courage.

he spent the last years of his vigorous life in an effort to promote mutual understanding and good will among all nations. they talk with churchill in london and shared experiences with britain's average pokes. -- folks. he visited and talk with the people of russia, of the middle east, and of china, renewing his strong faith in a unity of all people. a great american and world citizen who will be sorely missed in the critical years ahead. >> the contenders features

profiles of key figures who ran for president and locked. the change political history, nevertheless. our live look at the contenders continues next friday when we will be in new york to talk to historians and take your calls about the presidential campaign of thomas dewey. the series airs every friday night through december 9, on c- span. you can say tonight country program again at 11:00 p.m. eastern. for more information on our series, go to our website at c- span.org. there you'll find a schedule, biographies of all the candidates, historian's appraisals, and their speeches. that is all at c- span.org/thecontenders. >> neck, president obama of the announcement concerning u.s. troops patrol in iraq followed by a reporter is preparing by the national security adviser. you'll have another chance to

see "the contenders" on key figures who ran for president and law, but changed history. tonight, the life of wendell willkie. >> this weekend, republican president to canada's travel to des moines. watched our live coverage of humor -- our live coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern saturday on c-span's road to the white house. >> neck, president obama announces that all u.s. troops will be out of iraq by january 1, which formally ends the iraq war that began in 2003. here is that statement, made in the white house press room.

>> good afternoon, everybody. as a candidate for president, i pledged to bring the war in iraq to end and. after taking office i took actions to remove all our troops by the end of 2011. the commander in chief insuring this successful strategy has been one of my national security strategies. last year i announce the end our combat mission in iraq, and to date we have removed more than 100,000 troops. iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country's 30. a few hours ago i spoke with the iraqi prime minister, and said the united states will keep its commended. he spoke of the determination of the iraqi people to force their own future.

we are in agreement to move forward. today i can report that as promised the rest of our troops in iraq will come home by the end of the year. after nearly nine years, america's war in iraq will be over. for the next two months, our troops in iraq about tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home. last american soldier will cross the border out of iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the american people stand united in our support for our troops. militaryow america's efforts in iraq will end. even as we mark this important milestone, we are also moving into a new phase in the relationship between united states and iraq. as of january 1 and in keeping with our strategic framework

agreement with air, there will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. into the's conversation the prime minister and i agreed that a meeting of the higher coordinating committee of the strategic from agreement will convene in the coming weeks, and i invited the prime minister to come to the white house in december. this will be a strong and enduring partnership with our diplomats and civilian advisers in the lead and will help iraqis strengthen institutions that are just and accountable. when will build new ties of trade and commerce and education that unleashes the potential of the iraqi people.

we will partner and iraq that contributes to regional security and peace, just as we insist that other nations respect iraq's sovereignty. as i told the prime minister, we will continue discussions on how we might help iraq trained and equipped its forces, again, just as we are getting training and assistance to countries around war. there will be some difficult days ahead for iraq's, and united states will continue have an interest in an iraq that is stable, secure, and self- reliant. just as the iraqis have persevered through war, i'm confident they can build a future or the other history as the cradle of civilization. here at home, in the coming months, there will be another season of homecomings. across america, our service men and service women will be united with their families. today i can say that our troops in iraq will definitely be home for the holidays. this december will be a time to reflect on all that we have been through in this war. i will join the american people

and pay tribute to the more than 1 million americans who have served in iraq and we honor our many wounded warriors and the patriots and the iraqi and coalition partners who gave their lives for this effort. i would note that the end of war in iraq reflexed a larger transition. the tide of war is receding. the drop down in iraq allow us to refocus our fight against al qaeda and achieve major victories against its leadership. now as we removed our last troops from iraq, we're beginning to bring our troops home from afghanistan, where we have begun a transition to afghan security and leadership. when i took office roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars, and by the end of this year that number will be cut in half. make no mistake, it will continue to go down. meanwhile, yesterday marked the

definitive evan and the quest the definitive and of the gaddafi regime in libya. today nato is working to bring this successful mission to a close. to sum up, the united states is moving forward from a position of strength. a long war in iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. the transition in afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home. as they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world, and as we welcome home our veterans, we will never stop working to give them and their families that care, the benefits, and the opportunities that they have aren't. this includes an listing our

veterans in the greatest challenge that we now face as a nation, creating opportunity and jobs in this country. after a decade of war, the nation that we need bill is the nation that we will build, and it is our own, an america that sees its economic strength restored. thank you very much. >> following the precedent of restatement, the press secretary took reporters questions. this is about 30 minutes.

-- following the precedent's statement, the press secretary to a reporter's questions. this is about 30 minutes. >> i have with meet the president's deputy security adviser on my left and on my right, the vice-president's national-security adviser. they are here to take questions about the announcement the president just made. after that, we will give your question to them on that subject or any subject they may be able to help you with. i will be available to take questions on other subjects. from a democrat in new jersey,

thanks to president obama for announcing the troop withdrawal from iraq from the end of the year. reporters heard from deputies security adviser dennis -- said iraqi officials expressed general appreciation for the work u.s. troops have done since 2001. >> thank you for being here this afternoon. we will continue with the briefing. >> when the president laid out a vision for the future of iraq in camp lejeune, he said we or looking for an iraq that was stable and self-reliance. that is exactly what we have here. there is no question this is a success. >> there have been long discussions over the issue of immunity. have those issues been resolved? >> the present preferred was for

the best relationship for the united states going forward. that is what we have now as a result of the work of our commanding general of there, the ambassador, and what we have done of the course of these last three years is indicate -- the president indicated his not only commitment to fulfilling that agreement, but his willingness to hear out iraqis on what of relationship they want going forward. we talk about communities. the president will insist on our troops having what they need no matter where they are. the decision that you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his few and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want going forward. relationship is a normal rush of -- is a normal relationship that is based on a civilian presence in the lead, but also will have important security components as our relationships around the world have -- jordan, egypt, other countries that have security components. we had exactly what we needed to protect our interests, and the iraqis feel the same. >> are you confident that the

iraqi security forces are very well equipped to take on these responsibilities without any further training? >> we feel proud of the work that our guys have done, civilian and military, in training iraqis. they have worked together over the course of these last several years, not only trained together, but the ploy, a -- but also deployed, partner together, robustly, and as we have done this, over the course of the last seven or eight months, a full review of where we stand with iraqis, one assessment after another about the iraqi security forces came back saying these guys are ready, they are capable, these guys are proven. they're proven because they have been tested in a lot of the kinds of the tests they see going for. we feel good about that. >> even though they are coming home, major attacks continue in

iraq. what prevented an agreement being reached from training? independent analysts said trading was essentials to get the troops in order. >> it is important to point out that we have the capacity to maintain trainers. the offers of security cooperation in iraq will have the capacity to train iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapon systems that the iraqis are going to buy, including a portly the f-16's just purchased just about a month ago. but her you will see opportunities in naval exercises, a part in 80's and had an increase in the air force training.

we are going to have the kind of a robust security cooperation with the iraqis that we have with allies are around the war. the suggestion that there's not going to be training is not accurate. [unintelligible] the main purpose the effort that we undertook over the course of not only the last several months, but also over the last several years, is the establishment of a normal relationship that allows them in the region of a considerable unrest of the moment to chart the kind of secure future they want. that was the goal, not some kind of an arrangement around in unity. and getting this kind of coal, fulfilling the circle of debt

secured relationship, we got exactly what we needed. >> to the iraqis say that the same mission was accomplished? >> does this leave an open door for iran to exert influence in iraq? what is the u.s. plan to counter that? >> as he sat now in 2011, after years of the kind of united international pressure that they have seen over the last several years, that kind of robust outcry over the kind of activity that we saw announced last week as it relates to them not living up to their obligations under the convention to which they are party to predict the elements -- -- to protect diplomats, of all things. you're seeing and around that is weaker and more isolated.

we do not need to exercise our influence on those matters to iraq. we frankly deed that as a matter of course through the united nations by laterally. so we are concerned about iran's and willingness to live up to obligations, be that on something as simple as protecting diplomats wherever they are serving. we of concerns about that, i do not have concerns about our ability to make sure the iraqis can exercieignty they want. it is important to highlight one critical fact as we look at iraq's future. if you see the kind of increased production of iraq will production as usc of the next crest as you have seen the last few years, this is one indicator of that very few positive future so that the iraqis have in front of them. >> how can you be assured of

the security of diplomats and contractors who will stay in iraq? >> it is something we are spending a great deal of time on, and we have insisted for our diplomatic presence -- we will maintain an embassy there. we have embassies around the world. we have to assume a basic amount of protections for our people, and that is what we have communicated to the iraqis. we continue to insist that the iraqis help us in protection of our diplomats. we will ensure the kind of standard protections of our diplomatic personnel, to include marine security details, but we will also make sure that working with contractors can have the kind of protection they need. >> do you have an estimate of how many security contractors will be left behind?

>> 4000, 5000, in the various forms of security that are left behind. we have three diplomatic posts, basra, another city, and in baghdad. we will continue to negotiate this with iraqis, but we will make sure we have the other kind of presence we need, both as it relates to their fixed site security, and their ability to move around. >> was this five or six years ago there was concern that civil war was going to break out what concerns do you have about how secure the sunnis or kurds will in this new sovereignty?

>> what you see is that politics has taken hold in iraq, and they are figuring out how to resolve their differences through a political process. it is not always pretty, linear, but the work through their problems to the political system, and that has to get a lot of the fuel out of the sectarian problems. of course there continues to be a security challenge. if you go back to 2007, 2008, there were 1500 security incidents every week. now we're down to 100 per week. this has been sustained over the last couple of years. the bottom line is we think that because the iraqi security forces are increasingly competent and capable in dealing with internal security and because of the emergence of

politics of doing business, the sectarian -- is unlikely to be lit again, the sectarian fuse. eight years. $1 trillion. >> 32,000 wounded. was this war worth it? >> history will have to judge that. i do not think any of us can judge that now. what we can say is that our troops have performed remarkably over that period of time, and our diplomats are doing the same. the result is that today we are in a place where iraq is emerging as a secure, stable, and self-allied country, and that was the goal. as of the rest of what that is up to history. >> can i ask a question on pakistan. was there any reassurance from the pakistanis that they would stop me haqqani network? what was achieved?

>> the secretary bus trip was a high-level trip that included many of our high colleagues from the national security council. others in the national security council. we are appreciative of the secretary of leading this effort. secondly, the breadth of the delegation that the secretary led pakistan understand us _ not only the importance of the relation, but the importance we attach to our concerns about the concern is a tree should come not just in pakistan, but also in afghanistan. as it relates to the particular conclusions of the visit, we will leave that to the secretary and her delegation. but the president is obviously appreciative that the secretary led the delegation and a delegation, in its makeup and seriousness underscores the strength of our conviction about these matters.

>> the mechanics, for people watching and trying to see -- whether families are home for the holidays. how will this happen and break down? how quickly will people get home and be in a responsible way? >> i will leave it to the pentagon to brief about it. but i will make one comment. i happen to be in iraq over the weekend and happen to see some of things general austin and his team are a section waiting on the ground. -- of fluctuating on the ground. absolutely unbelievably powerful demonstration allow our, not only our strength and capacity, military strength and capacity, but also commitment to making sure that we do this the right way. so, we are seeing every piece of equipment every closely accounted for. it is being accounted for. it is being then assigned to where it will end up. a degree of care for this and scrutiny to this effort that i

-- careful mess and scrutiny to this effort that i think, as with the rest of this effort, but all of us very proud and, frankly, very appreciative of what they are doing. >> a quick follow-up of libya. at the video that appears that gaddafi was alive and injured, then dragged around. nobody is going to stand up for gaddafi. he is a bad guy. after he was killed there was a lot of anger on the arab street about how it played out and now the u.n. is planning an investigating what happened. are there concerns about what happened on the ground in libya and are you going to back a u.n. investigation? >> bottom line is, this obviously has been a dynamic 24 hours. getting additional information ourselves about what exactly transpired. we are in very close contact with our nato colleagues and i know there are looking at is today, so i will not get out in front. we always have concerns about exactly what is happening in each of these situations. frankly, our concern for the

situation in libya is exactly what the president took the kind of bold and decisive action he took several months back. but the fact that i have concerns does not lead me to want to get out in front of the facts, either. >> considering that you had a turkish troops having to chase kurds in iraq -- there has been a rise in violence inside iraq. what about it gives of the united states confidence you are leaving a more secure iraq's? >> the first thing i would do is this associate myself from the comments prepared two, at various times he had seen spectacular attacks across iraq. frankly, that is one of the techniques of some of the insurgent groups. we see they tried to do it once every several weeks or months to get attention.

but the fact is, chuck, you can't say the numbers of attacks have gone up in iraq. it has gone dramatically down. as tony suggested, more than a even 15-fold decrease in the course of the last couple of years. that is one indication of progress. the other, of course, is the capacity of the iraqi security forces. every study and assessment we saw in the course of the last several months came back with the same conclusion. these guys are very capable against the threat that as most present. 3, is the point tony made and the vice president has been critical in helping bring about, is politics has broken out in iraq and people are resolving the differences in the kind of political and democratic way that i think just a few years ago we all could have only hoped for, and obviously it gives us reason for great hope.

>> the strategy in libya versus what we are seeing, the decisions made in iraq, versus the decisions that were made in yemen, for instance, fitting together in the obama doctrine? >> as tony said, historians will be busy laying out a doctrine. but he is very committed to making sure we remain secure. and the threats to our security are different in every country. in fact, we have to be nimble enough to address those concerns with the ability that allows us to confront them but not get bogged down with any particular kind of threat. what we are seeing is a more dynamic threat environment. so, again, i will let the historians, the theoreticians lay down with the doctrine is but having worked now for the president for about five years, he does not take anything as a serious leg as he does, knowing what the threats are, -- as seriously as he does, knowing

what the threats are, identifying them, and then bringing overwhelming power to bear to neutralize those threats. that is going to be different in different countries. i think as you have watched over the last couple of years, he has not been bound up by a particular ideology, but rather bound up specifically by his interest in making sure we neutralize the threats. >> can you explain to some of the critics of this decision how the administration will ensure none of the progress will be rolled back? >> i think the president indicated in his remarks, what we have seen is tremendous progress over the last several years by the iraqis. you see tremendous capability, not only in their ability to carry out security operations but also in their ability to carry out democratic and political operations, which is to say, they are much more interested frankly in a political resolution to their

ongoing disputes. the other thing is we also have to recognize that that the president laid out in his speech in 2009 down at camp lejeune, we set a very clear set of objectives -- an iraq that it is secure, stable, and self- reliant. that is exactly what we have. our ability to maintain a robust and diplomatic presence there, our ability to maintain ongoing training efforts with the iraqis, all of that will contribute to our ability to work with our iraqi colleagues to ensure that they can maintain the great gains they have made. but i also think the lesson of the arab spring it is also quite important, which is that representative governments that listen to their people and that conduct elections are ultimately going to be much more secure. i think in that regard, the iraqis have a leg up on a very dynamic situation.

>> i think it is important to look back over the last three years, the president said he would do a number of things and he has done every single one of them -- at every juncture in iraq security has not gone backward. we started out we had 150,000 american troops in iraq, we said we would be out of the cities in the summer of 2009, ending the not get worse, they got better. by december 2010 we said we would end a combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops, and we moved forward. the president has committed repeatedly to both fell in the security agreement and bring all of our troops home at the end of this year and we are on track. as we discussed, security incidents have gone down, not up. iraqi security forces have gone up and not down and politics has become the way to do business in iraq. for all of those reasons, we already have a track record to suggest that the security of

iraq and move forward. >> has the u.s. scene uptick and violence are around the time of transition? >> what we have seen our efforts of extremists use this period of dynamism and train to take advantage of the situation and to threaten our guys and the iraqis. what you are seeing is especially over the last couple of months, because of the great work of general austin and our troops, less and less successful in their doing that. frankly, i think you are seeing more and more frustration on behalf of iraqis because oftentimes what these extremist groups are doing when they are trying to threaten our troops is they are killing more iraqis. so, that all contributes to the kind of developments that make us feel as positively as we do about the situation we find ourselves in. but again, just going back to chuck's question, we will

remain vigilant on this, as we have threats from southeast asia to north africa. the bottom line is, not only is it we have done what we said we would do in iraq, the president has done exactly what he said we would do from iraq, the horn of africa, across the arabian peninsula, throughout south asia and all the way to southeast asia. so, we will stay on the offense on these set of threats, and also come in so doing, take advantage of the great opportunities out there at the moment. so, we feel very good about it, as i think you heard the president suggests. >> connie, over here. >> is the u.s. considering selling or leasing drones to turkey against the pkk, and helping iraq to defend its airspace?

>> on iran, the president has been very clear about what we expect from the iranians. i am not sure how you are characterizing might view of the iranian threat, but i just want to be very clear. we have big expectations that the iranians live up to their obligations in the international community, be that in human rights, nuclear responsibility, or be that even as something as simple as protecting diplomats. secondly, as it relates to turkey, obviously as you saw the president expressed significant concern about the attacks on southeastern turkey earlier this week. we are awe is sustained in close touch with our turkish allies but i did not have anything specific to announce right now. relating to iraqi air

sovereignty, we will continue to work with the iraqis as it relates to the full range of security and training opportunities and the needs of the ss. we can do that fully in the context of fully normalized relationships as the president laid out a couple of minutes ago. >> the video conference, the poignant moment you spoke about -- it does not sound like the conclusion of the video conference was surprised. the president was preparing obviously for the conference. can you talk about why it was a poignant morning and what he talked about concerning his reflections. >> maybe tony has something more poetic than i do. but i just said i thought it was a poignant exchange because of what appeared to need to be genuine appreciation on behalf of the iraqi prime minister for all of the sacrifice. in fact, he called out all of the sacrifice that our troops and their families have, and our diplomats and families, have put on the line for iraq's future.

that is not new to me as it relates to the president of the united states. he obviously has live best quite vividly on numerous occasions. but i just thought it was an important moment where the two leaders expressed their view that having set out on this effort about three years ago, now they feel like they have got into a very important point where they can take this next that, pursuant to this agreement, but also continue forward with the kind of robust partnership that i think they recognize our troops and diplomats have built over the last couple of years. >> does the president support the turkish incursion into northern iraq to? >> i am not going to get into the specifics on this, but i will say we obviously worked very closely with our turkish friends about their ongoing

concerns from such attacks. we obviously designated a certain of the kurdish forces as designated foreign terrorist organizations. i will not get into it anymore than that. i will see what the coming days and weeks of all but we will remain in close contact with our service allies. >> you made reference at one point to iraqi oil. iraq and libya are very wealthy countries. will the u.s. asked for financial reimbursement from iraq and libya and what you see as future u.s. relations with syria now against hamas question and i can you repeat the last question -- syria and hamas? >> as for asking for reimbursement, i did not anticipate that. as it relates to syria and hamas, we have been clear about what we expect from syria. we will see whether after now several months of allowing themselves to fall into deeper

and deeper isolation, whether they made the right choice. but i think the president has been quite clear on this, as has the secretary of state. >> what about hamas in regards to the prisoners 1? >> i think jay has talked a lot of the prisoner remarks the last couple of days so i associate with his remarks. >> i question is a follow-up. are you offering new assistance to iraq or to libya in light of the announcement. if not, why not? >> we have a very robust security assistance program with the iraqis. it is textured and includes the kinds of things like military sales we saw with been f-16 purchase, but other pieces of it. that is a matter of public record. it is passed every year by congress. so, we anticipate that being a very important part of this robust and textured important

security relationship going forward. as it relates to the libyans, we obviously continue to work with the tnc about what we expect from a representative government. working with our partners and allies to indicate what kind of support we will provide in the future. but there is no significant changes in our assistance since yesterday. >> has he briefed any members of congress prior to this decision, and if not, why? >> we did brief members of congress. in number of us on the phone with senate and house leadership and other members to brief them on the president's conversation with the prime minister and to brief them on what the president intended to say. of course, over long over these many weeks and months we have been in regular contact with members of both houses. on iraq, what we were doing, and what we were planning, and

the main point is that the president all along has been absolutely consistent in saying what he would do and doing what he said he would do, and that is where we are today. >> was the speaker's office on the call? was involved in that? >> yes. >> protection for embassies, how many troops will be sent there to protect embassies? >> there will be no troops to provide security to embassies other than the standard marine security detail, which we have at embassies and every country in the world. other than the marine contingent that provides security, there will be no troops kept in iraq for security of the embassies. for the security of our embassy and two consulates, we will contract with security contractors to provide -- as i said again -- fixed site security as well as movement

security when our guys go out and do their job in the country. >> [inaudible] >> the president is working this and secretary geithner and we will let them work on that. >> the last two. >> the president is emphasizing the troops coming home by the end of the year. how many should expect to be redeployed may be in afghanistan? >> you heard the president's remarks underscore we are continuing in afghanistan but the number of u.s. deployed overseas has been robustly reduced. as it relates to the specific deployment schedules, i will leave that to the pentagon to brief you through the specifics of that.

the fact of the matter is given that we are looking at dramatically fewer u.s. troops deployed overseas as a result of these, you can't extrapolate you will see a less robust rotational effort. but again, i will leave the pentagon to come in. >> last one for these guys, and i will stay. >> thank you. i would like to ask both gentleman, the withdrawal of troops even by those who support it, nonetheless is questioned about giving the exact number of the troops leaving and when they will be gone, like telegraphing a message to possible enemies. what do you say about that criticism? >> i will try first. security agreements negotiated and signed in 2008 by the bush administration stipulated this date -- december 31, 2008 -- at the end of the military

presence. so, that has been in law now or been enforced now for several years. so, it is difficult to rebut the proposition that this was a known date. by the same token, i think individual decisions that our commanders are making are informed by their assessment as it relates to individual movements and security related there with, and we feel very good and frankly very appreciative of their efforts in that regard. >> no effort to contact the office of -- >> there was a call to many members of congress from both houses, including leadership. of over both invited. both parties. absolutely. >> the only thing to add dd

other dates were well known in advance. it was well known we would be out of the cities and the summer of 2009 and the situation improved. it was long known we were going to change our mission in the summer of 2010, ended the combat mission, and get down to 50,000 troops. again, security continued to improve. and there is something very important about the united states keeping its commitments. it sends a very strong and powerful message throughout the region inside iraq and countries outside of iraq. >> thanks, guys. >> next, a conversation with virginia congressman frank wolf. he was a guest on today's "washington journal." is congressman frank wolf of virginia and he is representing virginia's 10th and he is here to talk to us about his new book "prisoner of conscience." congressman wolf, i'd like to

start with libya since it's in the news and you took a couple key votes on libya over the years. did you overall support what the u.s. was doing? guest: no, i did not. i felt the president should have had support of the congress. when the administration unilaterally does that i think it's not good. having said that, though, i congratulate the president. i'm pleesed that gaddafi is gone. i think we need to make sure that whoever takes place is good. i was in egypt in july and the muslim brotherhood may very well took over and i talked to the christians and they are concerned. i think we need to be careful now it's done. i think the administration deserves the credit and make sure we do to keep a good group in there. some connected to the rebels have been connected to the mureb dean and al qaeda so --

muse dean and al qaeda so we need to be careful. host: what got you started on all this? guest: i joined a small bible study group. congressman tony hall who is probably my best friend from congress, a democratic from deyton, ohio, we got interested and one day in 1984 he called me on the phone and asked me to go to ethiopia. it was when the famine was going on. i took a plane and went out to ethiopia kind of naively. we got stuck in a camp. the plane was not able to come back. what i saw and experienced was a life-changing experience. in 1985 a few of us went to

romania and it was dark in romania. i mean, evil. people would come up and put notes in our hands saying my husband's in jail and those two trips, ethiopia during the famine where many died and the romania trip in 1985 were really life-changing trips. and so i -- this is an issue that i've gotten interested in. host: with the fall of the wall and the eastern european states opening up, the changes in soviet union, there's been so many changes in the 30 years you've been in congress. are you overall optimistic about the state of things in the world or not? guest: i don't -- i don't say i'm optimistic. we could be. ronald reagan said the words in the constitution were covenant with the entire word. they were not just for the people of philadelphia in 1787

when they ratified the constitution. people know the words in the constitution. particularly they know the words of the declaration of independence. if we have an administration and a congress that is actively advocating for the persecuted standing up, you know, ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire. that 1983 speech but was criticized for but he was right. then he said, tear down the wall. you can do it that way and make changes. as you recall, gorbachev came to ronald reagan's funeral. i've seen that diminished. in congress we had giants like henry hyde and tom lantos who advocated that. scoop jackson. if we do that, push the freedom agenda, then i would be optimistic. but right now in china, the catholic church is going through great pressure. the bishop of hong kong saw me three months ago. they're doing terrible things

to the catholic church. they are percent indicating the uighurs. they're spying against us. we see in egypt the catholic christians now live in great fear particularly after the fall of mubarak. in sudan today as we speak right now they are there are probably bombers flying over the mountains bombing people. ethnic cleansing is taking place and nobody says a thing and so, yes, if america is exercising the moral leadership and we have a wonderful country and do it in a bipartisan way, both republicans and democrats and the president, then i would be optimistic. if we cease to be involved that way, and lastly, if we can't get control of the debt and deficit when we become economically weak, i mean, china's our banker. china has protestant pastors, plundered tibet, they are our

bankers. economically you can't pay our debt and we're borrowing from china, then i think that's not very good and that makes me a little pessimistic. my wife and i have 15 grandkids. i want to be optimistic but to be optimistic you have to do things and i think the model is really president reagan. host: staying with china. in your book you criticized at the time couldn't pleasea rice of not speaking out about china because of the debt situation. what constraints do you see of china holding debt, especially human rights? guest: i think it's an overwhelming constraint. it's a driving issue. president obama who was a 2009 nobel prize winner put on a dinner for tau while the 2010 nobel prize winner was in jail and his wife was under house arrest. the president didn't want to

meet with the dalai lama. president bush met with the dalai lama publicly. so i think that debt is really stopping us from saying things and doing things and it ought not to be. we should be advocating for those who are being persecuted and that's why i made the comment. we got to get this debt and deficit down. we got to eliminate it and hopefully we can come together in a bipartisan way to do it so that we can remain not only militarily strong but economically strong because if you're strong economically, i want the 21st century -- the 20th century was the american century because of what probably your mom and dad and your listeners' moms and dads and grandmothers and grandfathers did. i want it to be the american century and not the chinese century. if it's the chinese century it will be a very dangerous world. host: your chapter 13 begins, are america's best days behind

her? guest: well, i don't think so because i think the american people are kind of ready to deal with these things. i think the war has been in washington. in independence hall there is a chair in the room across from where the signing of the declaration took place. george washington would preside over the constitutional convention. there's a story about -- there was a sun carved and graved and painted on the chair that washington sat on. when the constitution was signed, franklin said, i used to look at the chair and i didn't know if it was a rising sun or setting sun. now i believe it's a rising sun. every politician wants to say america's best days are yet ahead and i believe they are if we do what we have to do. if we fail, if we allow this debt and deficit to take over, if we don't advocate and stand up for our principles and we continue to borrow from china, we're borrowing from saudi

arabia. saudi arabia funded the radical s up on the pakistan-afghanistan border. head of the fall ban went to a saudi school. 15 grandkids. i want to be optimistic. i believe that america's best days are ahead. but in order to be there you just can't say it. you have to do it. i think we got to control the debt and deficit and i think the model really for speaking out and advocating for the persecuted, for the poor is really president, president reagan. i admire president reagan. he just had that ability and he could feel what was taking place and with president reagan and with pope john paul and margaret thatcher they changed the world and we can do it again. am i optimistic, for my grandkids i'm optimistic but i'm optimistic knowing we have to do the right thing. host: you can send us a tweet.

for those who don't often watch committee hearings, we pulled a clip one from august where congressman wolf gets involved in discussion about the issue of sudan. let's listen. guest: you have to remove bashir. you have to remove bashir. he has to be removed. government change. regime change. there's no other way. it's been going on for 21 years. 2.1 million people, mainly christians, but some muzz preliminaries, killed in the north-south battle. 200,000 to 400,000 killed in darfur. he just said the u.n. and i heard were turning people over to be taken away. that sounds like the nazis to me. that sounds like something out of a bad movie. the u.n. has failed. they are war criminals. these are war criminals. host: congressman, how does

that passion serve your causes? do you find it's useful or something you don't have control over? guest: i've been to sudan many, many times. i have been in the camps. i was the first member of the house with sam brownback from the senate to go to darfur. there's genocide there. we talked to young women who told us they were raped and as they were raped they were raped -- said they were going to make a lighter skin baby. these people are still in the camps. bashir is an indicted war criminal. osama bin laden lived in sudan for -- from 1991 to 1995. bashir is responsible. and right now it's his aircraft or bombing innocent civilians in the nubea mountains and just -- nuba mountains and just this week the government of malawi invited bashir to come in for

an economic conference. the world stood up to ma lows vitch -- melosivich. just seeing this and i saw the women in the camps and i saw the people and it just doesn't seem right and also the number one supporter of bashir is china. the largest embassy in khartoum is china. china is getting a large portion of its oil. china has blocked the u.n. peacekeepers from being active there. so when you see this and i had a lady in the camp, her name was rebecca, she said, you in the west seem to care about the what else. you don't care about us -- you care about the whales. you don't care about us. it's being going on for 20

years. so -- host: question for you. how do the citizens of virginia react about your passion about foreign policy issues in foreign nations especially as our own economy is challenged? guest: well -- i'm grateful for the opportunity to serve having run for re-election. i'm very grateful to my constituents. jim cooper and i came up with the concept of this debt commission four, five years ago. we're adding a new -- we added a new lane on the t.r. bridge and just widened i-66 and fighting the ms-13 gangs. no, i think -- you >> tomorrow richard cohen has the latest on the deficit

reduction committee. susan keating talks about credit card debt and counseling programs for consumers. and joan schaffner, director of george washington university's and a lot program, discuss how states deal with the ownership of exotic animals as well as safety concerns. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next, the c-span series "the contenders" on wendell willkie. then president obama's announcement concerning u.s. troop withdrawals in iraq followed by reporters briefing on the announcement. and now, from rushville, indiana, the life of wendell willkie, pro failed -- profile than the c-span series, "the contenders."

[applause] >> wee want willkie! ♪ >> i stand before you without a single pledge or promise or understanding of any kind except for the advancement of your cause and that of democracy. -- in the preservation of american democracy. [applause] as your nominee, i will have an aggressive fighting campaign. [applause]

>> we want willkie! >> wendell willkie ran for president in 1940. these are some images of him on the campaign trail. we are here with david willkie. i want you to introduce the audience to some of the fervor. as we're seeing from these iconic image is from the 1940's campaign. they're surrounded him. your grandfather ran for president and tried to defeat franklin delano roosevelt, who was seeking a third term. >> here we are just entering into the great depression, the end of the hoover administration, eight years of the roosevelt administration. president roosevelt was right at the height of its power. -- of his power. that opened up a tie for a dark horse candidate. to come outside the political spectrum. >> keep in mind the state of the republican party. it was a party defeated by roosevelt in 1932. he defeated herbert hoover and

another. what were the republicans looking for and why was your grandfather the person they chose? >> and nobody else had run for a third term before, going back to the time of george washington. when washington stepped down, no one had even dreamed of running for a third term for the presidency. when roosevelt announced that he did, it changed the whole dynamic of what was out there. certainly looking at europe, world war ii, the nazis were going over to northern europe. it's certainly open up a time in which the republicans said, "what do we do?" >> herbert hoover was hoping the party would come back to him. u.s. senator thomas dewey of new york. u.s. senator taft from ohio. mr. republican. this was a convention in philadelphia that went for six hours. >> and nobody had come from a business side. nobody was actually doing that

except for wendell willkie. he certainly rose up and had an electric personality and magnetic energy about him. >> you obviously never knew your grandfather. as you talk to family members who knew him, he died at the age of 52. we will learn more about his life. why did he ultimately decide to run for the nomination? he did set the groundwork in 1939 for a possible predator to bed in 1940. -- presidential bid in 1940. >> he was always interested in politics, even from growing up in his hometown. of ellwood, indiana, which is just up the road from here. he talked about it in his life, in his childhood with his parents, when they got to college -- it was always an integral part of its life. -- of his life. >> we are in rushville, indiana, one of the homes of wendell willkie. we are inside the historical society.

i want to turn back here and look at this. if you can explain what this said, representative of that campaign? >> this is a wooden post card sent to the united states mail, sent from aberdeen, washington. all of the people in the town actually signed the back of the postcard to say "we want willkie." we want wendell willkie to run for the presidential nomination for the pregnancy. >> what was the campaign like? you had your willkie clubs. you had boxes of buttons and banners. they were distributed around the country and some are on display here. >> people wanted something new and different that they had not had before. this is where the willkie name started to take off. here was someone who had challenged the new deal successfully. he had been a strong proponent of individual freedom and liberty. people were drawn to the

message. >> we are about a block off of main street. your mother, wendell willkie's daughter in law, lived a few blocks from here. in rushville, indiana. the significance of this home to your family. >> if it was my grandmother's home town. my grandfather grew up in elwood. when they married, this was the place they generally call home. -- call it home. in the family, my great great grandfather had lost his shirt during the depression. instead of giving his father in law a handout, when the willkie and bought a farm land. -- what wendell willkie did was bought farmland. he asked his father-in-law if he would manage it. >> how much time did he spend in russellville. -- rushville? >> on and off.

>> his wife and son would come back constantly, but during the campaign, this was the headquarters. >> indianapolis and in thewere is elwood. -- where is elwood? >> the northeastern part of the state, north of rushville about an hour and a half from here, a little bit of an hour from indianapolis. in madison county. >> why is elwood so important for the 1940 campaign? >> the decided to accept the nomination in elwood, indiana. still to this day, it is the largest political rally ever in the history of indiana. >> the historical society said the people were honking horns and cheering that the hometown boy was the republican nominee. >> he was improbable going into the philadelphia. >> no question. he was the dark horse. during the nomination speech, it -- you had stories of beer

cans many feet high. it was such a hot, sweltering indiana day. it was a carnival atmosphere with books and paraphernalia. some of those you may see here today. >> david willkie, who is the grandson of wendell willkie. we'll be checking in with you over the next two hours. as we continue the series, tonight we are coming to you from rushville, indiana. in a moment, we'll be joined by author and historian amity shlaes, the author of "the forgotten man," and james madison, prof. of history at the university of indiana. we are going to show you the scene in elwood, indiana, and the speech by wendell willkie. as i walked to the next room and introduce our guest coming up in a minute and half. >> i say that we must substitute for the proxy of distributed -- the philosophy of distributed scarcity and the

philosophy of unlimited productivity. [applause] i stand for the restoration of full production and reemployment by private enterprise in america. [applause] the new deal's effect on business has had the inevitable results. the investor has been afraid to invest his capital. therefore billions of dollars lie idle and our banks. the businessman has been afraid to expand his operations. many hands have returned to the unemployment office. low-end comes in the city and irresponsible experiments in the country have deprived the farmer of this market. for the first time in history, american industry has remained stationary for a full decade. i charge that the path this administration is following

will lead us to the end of the road. -- will lead us like france to the end of the road. i say that this course will lead us to economic disintegration and dictatorship. i say that we must substitute for the philosophy of spending, the philosophy of production. you cannot buy freedom. you must make freedom. [applause] >> from elwood, indiana, in august of 1940 to the west -- rush county's historical society here in russia vill, indiana. -- russia will come indiana. -- rushville, indiana. this is one of the postage stamps from 1992 -- a 75 cent stamp celebrating the centennial of wendell willkie's birth. amity shlaes is with the george washington institute in dallas tx.

james madison, you have been a professor of history at indiana university. let me begin with that speech he gave in elwood, indiana. it lays the groundwork for why he was challenging franklin delano roosevelt. >> he ran against roosevelt and against the new deal and against the tide of policies and politics represented by the new deal. we will have a good opportunity to talk about those in detail. it was a fairly standard political speech, but not a fairly standard political rally. as david said, it was a massive rally. 150,000-200,000 people in the small indiana town in august at a time when as hoosiers say, you can hear the corn grow. it was 102 degrees that afternoon when wendell took the podium. he spoke with eloquence, yet the atmosphere was such the speech was a bit flat in terms of the audience, in terms of the reception. that was not the best part for

-- best start for the the campaign. we now know looking back that it was rather indicative of the campaign itself -- some of the disorganization and difficulties that the amateur newcomer had. why they should vote roosevelt out of office and not give him a third term. >> one note about the speech, it was heard on radio by millions of americans. >> this was the time for radio. people sat by the radio and listened intently. >> you ever written extensively about the new deal. this is now eight years after franklin roosevelt promised a new deal for the american people, yet unemployment still in the double digits, still a lot of concern about the economy. why did republicans turned to an outsider? it is probably the first time in american history that a non- military not a politician was the party nominee. >> this was a political expression. i see the speech as a enormous success of some kind.

the republican party was bailing -- failing the country. it was not giving an answer to what the democrats had offered. the democrats were not delivering recovery. the recovery was choosing to stay away. what willkie was an expression of his public charity -- popularity, willkie was an expression of the people. the gop had never expected a rally like that. it was a genuine grass-roots event of a kind that is very rare in the u.s. you start way down there and get to the nomination for president. >> why him? what did he do to try to lay the groundwork that allowed the party to turn to this outsider, this businessman from indiana who spent some time in new york at the 1940 nominee? >> it is easy to underestimate willkie.

the professional, the long term career politicians did just that. they underestimated this fellow. he did have no political experience to speak up. he had never ran for office. he never held office. he was a businessman, a lawyer, but very smart and very sophisticated. i think it is relevant that his business experience was really, in a way, political experience. he was a wonderful communicator. he knew how to work with people. he knew how to make a case, how to make an argument -- the kind of skills he deployed as a presidential candidate. >> yet alice roosevelt longworth said it was a grassroots of 1000 country clubs. you are smiling. >> the grassroots campaign is part of the politics and politicking. it truly was a grassroots in what it intended, but willkie was not a common man. he was a wealthy corporate lawyer and businessman.

he had an agricultural interest, but he was not a farmer. he said he formed by -- farmed by conversation, not by actually farming. he was far from the grass roots, but he tried to appeal to the grassroots. >> amity shlaes, let's talk about the 1940 convention. this had the governor of minnesota delivering the speech. longtime presidential candidate. herbert hoover, former president, who is hoping the party would turn to him one more time. tom dewey, and, of course, robert taft, who is hoping the party returned to him. >> we get in a little trouble when we draw analogies. dewey was the prosecutor from new york who overrated himself. we often have new yorkers come out and say they are going to win, especially when they have a legal background. taft was mr. republican. people had heard about him before. taft was a name.

we have had a president named taft. that was not particularly new. herbert hoover was a wonderful man. he had become a great vanity. he was getting in the way of the progress of the party because he kept wanting to run again. this time was probably past. what was exciting about willkie was he went to hear herbert hoover and could not believe that herbert hoover would hog the nomination. in that way, willkie was grass roots. he, himself, was not of the grass. he was chosen by people who were voting against the party. the other names were "the party." willkie came in as somebody different, not what we expected. >> he retired and an exciting man. i think for many people, it was none of the above. it was the perfect atmosphere

for an outsider who promises and looks very different from the republican standard of the late 1930's. >> what was the state of the democratic party, amity shlaes, and franklin roosevelt and his support in 1940, eight years after the new deal at a time when most residents would step down? -- most presidents would step down? >> roosevelt's victory -- 46 out of 48 states in the preceding election -- was so hard to get past. even as the party was beginning to get past it, this idea of having a third term -- the war was coming closer. war in 1940 had already been declared in europe. germans had invaded poland and britain. all of a sudden, roosevelt was -- just when you say there roosevelt could not run again, roosevelt was unable president.

he was good at war. they knew that. they knew that when he served as secretary of the navy. he might be a good war leader. all of a sudden, people were tongue tied and did not protest against roosevelt. still, it was quite amazing. >> professor madison, the headlines in the summer of 1940 with one "at the republican nominee, hitler moving to france and declaring victory. the big question, is great britain next? juxtapose the politics of 1940 and the looming clouds of war in 1940-1941. >> if worked very much to wendell willkie's advantage. >> france surrendered to the nazis a couple of days before the philadelphia convention began. that turned americans' attention very forcefully to this war in europe. they did not want to be a part of it. but they knew they needed a wartime leader. roosevelt looked a lot better in that context than did any of of the other republicans. >> we are coming to you from the

rush county historical society in rushville, indiana, one of the homes of wendell willkie. just about an hour from indianapolis. he was born in elwood, indiana. as we continue this series, our focus this week is on wendell willkie. 737-0001. if you live in the eastern time zones, 737-0002. there are so many images from that campaign. there are things we do not see in modern campaigns. ticker-tape parades. what was that significant? what did that tell you about the support wendell willkie had with certain sectors of the public? >> of course, there was no television. they really had to get out there with the people. he spent a lot of time crossing the country on trains. retail politics in towns and cities all across america, with all the hoopla, with all the stuff to get people engaged in

keep them excited about the campaign. >> was franklin roosevelt worried about wendell willkie? >> i think he enjoyed it. he said, "i am not going to pretend that it is an unimportant duty for me to campaign." -- and unpleasant duty for me campaign." both of them were warriors. both of them enjoyed that process, yet he respected willkie as a contender. from the beginning, you see him dropping comments -- "that one i am worried about." he was ready for the battle. >> we will hear from franklin roosevelt in just a minute. who was behind the willkie campaign? who are some names our audience might be familiar with? >> willkie had the good fortune or the good sense to meet people in the publishing and newspaper business. people who bought bank by the -- ink by the barrel.

the editor of forbes magazine, the book editor of the new york tribune, the editor of time life, and others. -- henry luce of time-life, and others. these people in the publishing world like him very much and were very strong behind-the- scenes in advocating a working for his nomination and election. >> yet, he was a democrat before becoming the republican nominee. >> he had more credibility as an outsider. he supported the league of nations. it was a wilsonian. he was a democrat right up to 1935. you can find documents with willkie associated with democrats. that gave them more power -- that gave him more power because he was that our course, -- a dark horse, because he would not a party man. he became a republican out of conviction. the saba was wrong with the --

he saw what was wrong with the democratic philosophy of governance. when you look at the beginning of his career as a businessman, he thought he was a democratic utilities man. they gradually came to be as the government was putting the -- government was hurting the private utilities and he grew angry. it was speaking truth to power. that is what he represented. he really was angry for what happened to his company. he saw shareholders lose money, in common in southern, and his company be hurt. that is someone observing from the political sphere. >> the unemployment rate in 1940 was what? >> the unemployment rate for 1940 was 10 or below. it was above where we are. it is a little bit muddy because you are moving towards a world war ii. the average unemployment rate for the 1940's was in the teens. that is the important thing to know. some people say 14, some say 15. it is the difference between terrible and awful. we would not accept it and it was so long. >> wendell willkie talking

about unemployment and jobs on the campaign trail in hoboken, new jersey. of that and then a conversation, part of the recordings of president roosevelt in the oval office from october 1940 as president roosevelt discusses the challenge. >> one of the things that struck me as i was driving up the streets of hoboken, why does the average store window have pictures of my opponent and his running mate on the new deal ticket? i do not know of any more appropriate place to put those pictures. [applause]

>> franklin roosevelt and recordings from 1940. james madison, franklin roosevelt was a politician. we hear a little bit of that in this oval office reported. -- recording. >> there is probably never anyone in the white house the -- who was more of a wily politician than franklin roosevelt. it is just superb. he had a skill and ability and success that has few if any rivals. willkie had the misfortune of running against that skillful politician. >> was wendell willkie consistent all the issues in the -- on the issues in the 1940 campaign? >> i do not think so. few politicians are consistent on the issues. the campaign started to go badly for willkie. the disorganization, the chaos. the difficulty of challenging roosevelt. in the last part of the

campaign, he moved in the -- he moved toward position on the war and a new deal that he may not happily agreed with. they were more harsh than the truth wendell willkie. -- more harsh, more vituperative then the true wendell willkie. >> amity shlaes. >> he was inconsistent, but we cannot downplay is a success. -- downplay his success. he won more votes in that election with any republican had ever won. electorally, roosevelt was that wily fox. he had that large number of electoral votes relative to willkie. on the popular vote, it was much narrower. willkie got much closer to the democrats than republicans have before. to the tape we just heard of roosevelt, roosevelt really did become worried. that's where you see him worried. he said all sorts of things. maybe we will hear tonight another tape where he worried about whether he could use willkie's mistress as a back to be him in the election.

-- a fact to beat him in the election. rita van doren. there is a lot of stuff going on and they are beginning to take him seriously. that was the future of the campaign. a very important girlfriend back willkie had. >> you write about are in your -- you're right about her in your -- you write about her in your book. let's take a few phone calls. we are in rushville, indiana. our first caller is kurt from ohio. welcome to the conversation. >> thank you and good evening. this is a great program and i hope that a lot of people take advantage of this great service to you are giving to the -- that you are giving to the american people. my question is -- i have a couple of comments -- the first

one is being in the suburbs of akron, ohio, i wanted to know a little bit more about wendell willkie's role as an attorney for the goodyear tire and rubber co. where he, during that time, was heavily involved in akron city democratic politics. my second comment is with wendell willkie being the dark horse candidate at that time i in 1940, do you see history kind of repeating itself 72 years later with the emergence of herman cain as the new dark horse for the republican party with no political experience and a business background, that sort of thing? he is starting to look better compared to governor romney and governor harry and all the -- gov. perry and all the others. who are basically career politicians. >> you bring up two good points. thanks for the call.

he grew up here in indiana. corrupt and akron. ohio was a key part of his career. >> he followed the economic growth. that is what happened. why did he go from indiana to ohio? because robert was there. -- because rubber the was there. because tires were there. we think of our cities now -- when he got to akron, he could not find a bedroom. it was that packed during the automobile boom. he parked on a chair that first night if you read his biography. it was so tight, going so fast with the automobile industry. that tells you a lot about what he was for. he was for economic growth. from there to new york with a law firm to serve a new industry, utilities, and then to have that utilities company. commonwealth and southern. >> herman cain was on the fox news channel today. one of the questions was the republican party has not nominated a businessman said wendell willkie. you have a direct link today.

>> i always like when people make connections between present-day politics or issues and the past. i am reluctant to do that except to say this -- it is too early to identify the dark horse because at this point in 1939, in the fall of 1939, very few people had ever heard of wendell willkie. many body was still a democrat. -- many thought he was still a democrat. he did not emerge until the spring of 1940. if we are calling a format, we would have to wait until the spring of 2012 to know if we have a dark horse. >> the conventions of a 1940 were very different from the conventions of 2012. >> the outcomes were less certain than now. we seem to be more settled in a primary system. when they aren't getting there, they are discounting of what already happened. >> ron is starting us from maryville, washington, to talk about the provincial campaign of wendell willkie.

>> thanks for taking my call and for having this series. it is outstanding. i want to provide three corrections or clarifications to statements that have been made. no. 1, the statement that roosevelt was the first president to contemplate a third term. actually, woodrow wilson contemplated at as documented in his recent biography by john milton cooper. ut may have been delusional, b he seriously contemplated it. it was after his stroke. secondly, i am pretty sure roosevelt was the assistant secretary of the navy, not full secretary. >> we did not say. >> third, willkie, i do not think, was the first non politician republican nominee. i would specify hoover as being in that category, even though he did hold the cabinet post of secretary of commerce. he was never elected politician

or did he serve in the military. >> thanks for the call. first on herbert hoover. and also woodrow wilson. hoover was secretary of commerce. before he was the nominee. woodrow wilson, the point about whether he was serious about a third term in 1920. >> i just read the biography of -- i am just a white teen a biography of -- writing a biography of calvin coolidge. wilson and wilson's crowd talked about a lot of things, but it was clear to the party that he could not be the next president. that is a little bit of a different category. we did not say roosevelt was secretary of the navy, we said he served the secretary of the navy, but we appreciate the caller. kitty and indeed. >> james is starting a snack -- james is joining us next from stanford, north carolina. >> i just wanted to comment -- in the fall of 1940, willkie

did a whistle stop tour of florida. i happened to be a western union trainee in melbourne, florida. he came from melbourne. he was on the rear platform of the train. a crowd of 50 or 60 people had the opportunity to shake hands with wendell willkie. that was either september or october of 1940. that was the comment i wanted to add. very interesting. >> do you remember if you saw him on the whistle stop tour? what did you think when you saw him campaign? what did you take when you saw him campaign? did he leave an impression? >> i was a kid at 18-years old. i was in all. -- in awe. here is a guide could be the president of the united states. i am 89 now. i was 18 then. just a kid. i was visibly impressed. it was an appearance on the back of that train. it was really something. it was something very, very

special. >> james, scrub the call. -- thank you for that call. these are some of the images of the crowds swarming around wendell willkie. he also used the media. a couple of points that nbc radio carried almost 30 hours of the republican convention in philadelphia. television was introduced a the 1940 convention. he was in new york, schenectady, and a few other cities. -- viewers in new york, schenectady, and a few other cities could see the republican convention. the republican party put together some advertisements used in movie theaters around the country. >> politics are always changing. there are always new techniques, new possibilities, and new media. willkie was very astute. it was part of his experience as a businessman to work with the media and new opportunities to make your case. he was excellent at that. he was helped by the time the people he had around him in the campaign, or the best of the best. what he would not a farmer, but -- >> he was not a farmer, but

he went after the agriculture vote. >> the agricultural vote was still very important in 1940. there are a very large number of farmers in america and they are very important -- they vote. foreign policy was central to presidential elections for any president expected to have a chance of victory. they must pay attention to that. that is what we see these photographs of willkie standing in front of a corn field or in front of pigs. some wags said that all the hogs in rushville started to pose as soon as the cameras showed up. there were so accustomed to willkie in the hogs and a cornfield. he was quite honest. one of the nice things about willkie is he was honest, including never actually pretending he was indeed a farmer. >> the major issues in 1940 -- what were they, amity shlaes? >> there was the war. are we going in? do we have to go in? is london is to be bombed, maybe we have to go in.

even though we remember that world war i was such a horror. war always stops economics. -- war always trumps economics. to the economy. annie had chosen to stay away. those are the big ones. one thing about willkie, we know the phrase "happy warrior." we know it from the democrats, roosevelts, house met. -- al smith. willkie was a happy warrior. he was basically not a vicious man. what the gop have learned in the 1930's was that they failed through bitterness. but fail to through the liberty league. all the attacks on the new deal were bitter and angry. willkie represented a new way of being for the party, not just to smear roosevelt, but to take him on with facts and without

too much ad hominen. i do not know if you call that media or character. i call it character. >> if you into a movie theater -- "gone with the wind," one of the many movies still in theaters in 1940, you very well could have seen this advertisement put together by the republican national committee for wendell willkie. >> whether you are in oregon or florida, new jersey are california, you have a right to know how well your republican candidates for breton and vice- -- for president and vice- president understand agricultural problems and their personal an interest in farming. for this purpose, this motion picture has been produced. ♪ the two most talked-about men in american life today are the central figures of this picture. wendell willkie of indiana and

charles mcnary of oregon. mr. willkie visits a fanukt of -- with a family of one and his partners. it is a hot day. mr. willkie requested to pump up for the tour began. he does not let anything stand in his way. these are practical corn belt farmers. his interest in america's young people is genuine. in them, he sees the future of america. >> from the republican national committee -- amity shlaes, he described himself as a liberal. this is an important point to understand. liberals in the 1940 was a very different term. >> what he meant was the

liberalism of the individual -- your individual rights. mature human rights. that was a big thing for him. not the liberalism of the group. not the progressive block. he saw an opposition there. that is quite different from liberalism. where we have block such as farms or veterans. that is what he was seeking to define, especially in the middle of the 1930's. as it was becoming a political personality. >> richard is joining us from wellington, florida. we are with amity shlaes and james madison. >> you mentioned the important role of the publication houses in new york. henry luce and so on. i visited the elite special collections and went to the willkie files. i was very struck by the role and campaign of people like john whitney, william harding

jackson, the managing director of the whitney co., and of william mcilvaine in the chicago area. i would like to know if you would talk a little bit about their role in the campaign and, more broadly, the level of support from melbourne and b. j. h. whitney companies in new york that stem from mr. willkie's time in new york in 1949 and maybe before that. thank you so much. >> he actually passed away in 1944. his years in new york and the people who supported him. >> wendell willkie was a corporate man. he worked a commonwealth and southern, which was a company put together to wire the southern united states. it would not be surprising if you heard names like that

associated, but not all establishment republicans with money worked for willkie. many worked for the other names we heard. some of them came around when they thought he would become the candidate. that is different. you see people jumping in at various points. >> the sale of the tva and the impact it had on willkie and his view of government >> it really starts in the 1920's. the south is dark. the rest of the country is lit up. the rest of the country is beginning to wonder how we like -- light up the south. the company was put together to supply the answer. there is a bit of governance

orchestration because there were different loss in the state. -- different laws and the state. they thought they could do it. they went on the stock exchange. it was when the dow jones first started. that with the internet of the -- that was the internet of the time. another view coming from the government was the government should supply the power. we light up the south -- the tennessee valley authority. willkie found himself as head of commonwealth and suburb. -- and southern in a wrestling one of the heads of the tva said the with light up the south? they were meeting at the cosmos club. the gentleman lawyer from indiana -- there they were at the cosmos club trying to make friendly like two lawyers. willkie said my company will do some and your company will do some.

thal wrote that night in his diary, he did not get it. the government was to take over it all. that was the battle waged to the whole period. much of commonwealth and southern was sold to the government. willkie was declared the victor and the shareholders got money from the government. the question was was it really a victory or was it the annihilation of the public project pride that -- the annihilation of the private sector in the marketplace of the future -- utilities? they took a big check all route to show his friends. i am not sure it was a victory for the private-sector or the shareholders. >> ruth is starting us from new york city. we welcome you to the conversation as we look at the life, career, in the 1940 campaign of wendell willkie. >> they do so much for taking my -- thank you so much for taking my call. it seems if every election cycle, politicians and pundits will cite wendell willkie.

why does he still resonate through today's political environment? >> i would say it is the freshness, the munis that is -- newness that is inevitable. it is the dark horse standard we have been talking about. this is someone who is so different from vandenberg, taft, and the others. so viable, so energetic. he seemed so honest. one of my favorites stories about him is at a time even then when religion was important. candidates were expected to be churchgoers. "when asked said, "i generally sleep in on sunday mornings." that was an honesty many people found refreshing in 1940. >> in 1968, ap's said, "could it be another year of wendell willkie?" republicans were dissatisfied

with the potential nomination of richard nixon. >> every few cycles the republican party is the ostracized party. when it gets tired of itself, someone comes from outside. the republican party is more affiliated with business and enterprise. enterprising people tend to turn out to these republicans because they are from the private sector. that will always be a factor. who is the 1968 republican they were thinking of? the never came. we are still waiting for wendell willkie. he pushed roosevelt over into the war, to put it simply.

willkie fought the war at to happen because what was going on in europe was wrong and we had to help fight the bad nazis. he was on the right side on that. that is refreshing. when someone comes in and speaks the truth about an important and difficult issue. i think that is what people remember. he forced roosevelt to do what roosevelt knew what was right to do, which was go into the war. he may roosevelt be a better roosevelt. >> more from wendell willkie as he talks about liberalism and, also, the roosevelt new deal. this another from the republican national committee, a series of films. >> the doctrinaires of the opposition have attempted to picture me as an opponent of liberalism, but i was a liberal but for many of those men heard the word and i fought for the reforms of theodore roosevelt and woodrow wilson before another roosevelt stopped it and -- adopted and distorted the

word liberal. american liberalism does not consist merely of reforming things. it consists primarily of making things. we must substitute for the philosophy of distributed scarcity, the velocity of -- the philosophy of unlimited productivity. i stand for the restoration of full production and reemployment in american private enterprise. present administration has spent $60 billion. the new deal stands for doing what has to be done by spending as much money as possible. i propose to do it by spending as little money as possible. this is one issue in this campaign that i intend to make crystal clear before the conclusion of the campaign so that everybody in this country may understand the tremendous waste of their resources and money that has taken place in the last 7.5 years.

>> amity shlaes, as you hear the words of wendell willkie, your thoughts? >> that liberalism which he described, which he differentiates from progressivism, modern liberalism, goes all the way back to the germany of his family. his family left europe in 1848 or soon after as social democrats or liberals to get away from prussia. -- prussian militarism. it is all about the individual and freedom coming straight through and down. some of us would call willkie the last liberal because he was the last big classical liberal in u.s. politics like that. ronald reagan did not call himself a liberal. maybe someone called him a libertarian. the word changes meaning. the second was the economic

specification of what he was saying. that does come from him. from the point of view of the firms, productivity is really important, we not only make the widgets, but we make them better. that will increase the standard of living for everyone instead of redistributing, which is the ultimate. -- the alternate. that is a very clear and sophisticated economic argument. it is not about just helping the middle class. it is more complex than that. more complex than what we hear from politicians in this campaign. >> amity shlaes is a columnist with bloomberg. jim addison teaches history at indiana university. our next caller is ted from morristown, new jersey. go ahead with your question. >> did willkie feel that he got an inappropriate level of support in the general election from this nomination rivals, taft and hoover, and their people or was he to recently -- too recently arrived and the party to engage the leaders the way a veteran republican

politician would have? >> professor madison, you are shaking your head no. >> do not think he got the support he wanted. or deserve from the professional politicians. of little aphorism there comes from james watson said on hearing of the nomination, "it is all right if she wants to join the church, -- the town prostitute wants to join the church, but she would not be expected to sing a solo on the first day." willkie was an outsider to senator watson. they never ever trusted him. they never got behind him. >> if you go back to the speech in elwood, indiana, he said, "you republicans." how did that resonate with the republican base? >> i think some of them noticed there were called "you" rather than "us." because it was not a republican of your to prior to that speech. it was a democrat. -- because he was not a republic

and a year or two prior to that speech. he was a democrat. >> our next caller is from savannah, georgia. >> banks are doing this program -- thank you for doing this program all wendell willkie. i believe he was far ahead of his time on many issues. first of all, civil rights. he was a great advocate of civil rights. if the country had followed his lead, we would have avoided a lot of the strife and dissension we had in later decades. during the war, he was a great advocate of ending colonialism. he wanted to prevent the european countries from reestablishing their empires in the third world, particularly france and indochina. we would have aborted the -- if we had not stepped into the shoes of france, we would have avoided the tragedy of vietnam and the war. finally, i wanted to mention, the one speech that he gave, who is a great believer in the idea that the way to fight unemployment was to encourage

investment and growth. that would be the only way we would get jobs in this country. that is still relevant to what we are debating about today. i would be interested in hearing your panel discussion about those points. >> thank you, charles. andy shlaes. -- amity schlaes. >> one thing that really resonates from one world when we look at it today, his book sold tremendously well about this time -- when he went to the middle east, he said the colonials here are too dominant. when we withdraw, there will be a vacuum. there'll be nothing for the people to return to. we need to help them build democracy. he had a more cynical, cavalier attitude towards the middle east. when you hear the protesters in the middle east today, you go back to the errors we made in the 1940's and 1950's, not taking this seriously, squandering opportunity. his description of tehran and the number of babies who died because the water was not clean

and the tyranny of their regime gets back to what we see today in many places of the middle east. and what we have not been able to address systematically. he was like an analyst of the arab spring years ago. it is striking. >> john from maryville, indiana. we welcome you. please go ahead. >> within six months of the election of 1940, willkie was totally unpopular with the republicans merely because he had adopted roosevelt's foreign-policy. he was pro-war. the republican party ostracized him completely, no matter how well he did in the previous election. when he toured europe, he went over to asia. republicans hated that. the regular republicans of all

stripes. he called his campaign on farm -- foreign policy statements as "campaign oratory" before a congressional hearing in 1941. he ran again in 1944 for the nomination, but he had so embittered the republicans by becoming roosevelt's, almost four policy agent, that he had a -- far and policy agent, that he had no chance against dewey. the really was pro-roosevelt with regard to foreign policy. for the purposes of the campaign, he took an opposite position, but after the election, he came around and really endorsed roosevelt's oreign policy, went over to england to store on behalf of roosevelt. in 1944, roosevelt and willkie had met. i think roosevelt wanted his endorsement.

will be held off. -- willkie held off. before the election he died, so he never endorsed dewey or roosevelt. >> you bring up a number of key points. we are going to talk about this book, "one world," and his post campaign visit to new york. and its relationship with franklin roosevelt. you also brought up the 1940 fall campaign. let's touch on that. if we could. in the next hour, will focus on the second part of your phone call. the 1940 fall campaign. he went in with such great promise. he did not have a lot of support from the republican establishment. you touched on this earlier. basically, what happened? how did this unfold? >> roosevelt did have liabilities going into the 1940 campaign. he won in a landslide in 1936. the congressional elections in 1938 produced, i think, 81 new republican house members voting against roosevelt, voting against the new deal.

the results of the court packing plan. that created a lot of bitterness, even among some democrats in america. then there was, as we talked about, this notion that two terms were enough. it was good enough for washington, it should be good enough for roosevelt. they thought about his arrogance, his power, and the big government he had created. roosevelt had liabilities in 1940. willkie, a republican, might have been able to beat him. maybe willkie was the best possibility. >> willkie did not do it, in part, because he was running against his own former position as much as against his opponent. >> he did not have a good track record politically. >> he was pro union. he was with john l. lewis.

he supported the war and then was against it and then supported it. he was quite inconsistent. the best way to see him is as a wonderful attorney who takes the best case, the clarifying case. he speaks truth to power about it. the case of for the market and the company was the one he made at the end of the 1930's. in the campaign, several different cases conflicted with one another. later tonight we'll talk about some great cases that we still talk about today. his positions and what he did. he always stood for free market. he was always pro-war or no war. it is not right. he was a protean man. that was part of its charm. often right. often cannae in the switch. it does not make for good campaign. they could see he was like roosevelt.

>> a lot more to talk about. we want to show you another piece of film. this is from the republican national committee as a way of trying to frame william willkie. -- that childhood and roots of wendell willkie. we will come back and talk to david willkie about his grandfather. >> wendell willkie, born 48 years ago, emerges in response to the greatest demonstration of spontaneous support and our country has ever known. his grandparents, like the ancestors of many americans, fred project fled europe to find -- led the autocracy of europe to find liberty in this country. here in elwood, his parents practiced law. wendell willkie was born in a modest home like many americans. he went to public high school just like many americans. his hard-working parents moved to this elwood home. he went on to success in law and business.

>> just some of the scenes from elwood, indiana, the birthplace of wendell willkie. david willkie is when the -- wendell willkie's grandson. many say the resemblance is pretty amazing. the you think you look like your -- do you think you look like your grandfather? >> not exactly. i think of myself as my own person. >> what kind of a man was wendell willkie? describe his persona and how your family views him as a politician. >> physically, he was a large man. some called him a big bear of a man. his brother was a heavyweight roman-greco wrestler. he was always tasseled. he would put on a suit. it would immediately become rubble. -- rumpled. he could never keep his hair

straight. his wife would have to tell him when to get a haircut. he was not so worried about outward appearances. what he was worried about what the idea. how'd you convey the idea? what is important about it? how you win the other person over to your side? >> explain his indian roots and, also, where he went to college and how he began his career here as a lawyer. >> he grew up in elwood, indiana. the interesting thing about him and his parents was not only was his father a lawyer, but his mother became one of the first attorneys in indiana. her first case was against his father. they were husband and wife against each other. at the end of the day, his mother one. -- won. not surprising because you the -- because she was most of his siblings went to indiana university. they were a vibrant part of the community. they led the conversations that came out of there.

a future governor of indiana was also there at the same time and became friends with him. after he finished at indiana university, he took a job in kansas teaching history. he also coached basketball. i never think of him as being an athletic person, but coming from indiana, we always like to think of ourselves as basketball players. he did that for a time before coming back to indiana university and going to law school. when he went to law school, he was always challenging the thought process that was there. he was the top of his class, and at the end, when he graduated, he was giving a speech to the commencement class and he chastised both the indiana general assembly, the legislature here in indiana, but also the supreme court at the time. it was so scandalous that the university did not know what to do. they delayed giving him his

diploma for several days while they debated what to do and eventually let him go on, but he was always one to challenge the status quo. >> unlike some of the earlier contenders we have covered, we are now moving into the radio, television and film age, so we can hear some of these personalities speak, and wendell willkie did have a strong tv personality. can you elaborate on that? >> absolutely. he was drawn to the camera, as you can see in the clips you have shown. he relished talking about different ideas both in casual conversation, but then on a larger stage too. when people were paying attention to him, it was almost as if he got more energized along the way. >> your grandmother was edith willke. how did the two meet?

>> they were in a neutral wedding party together. he was drawn to her. she was a librarian by training, intellectual in her own right, and there was a natural romance that bloomed. >> david willkie is the grandson of the 1940 presidential candidate, wendell willkie. he got the republican nomination on the sixth ballot in philadelphia. we have the author of "the forgotten man" with us. let's take you to the scene in november of 1940. it was just down the street at the hotel were many reporters gathered to follow the 1940 campaign.

wendell willkie came not to declare that franklin roosevelt was in fact going to be elected. he conceded the election. we will follow that with a conversation we had a few weeks ago dick lugar on wendell willkie and his brand of republican politics. >> people of america, i accept the result of the election with complete good will. i know that they will continue to work as i shall for the unity of our people in the building of a national defense, in aid to britain, and for the elimination from the america of antagonisms of every kind to the and that the free way of life may survive and spread throughout the world. >> after that, he really became an ambassador for the united states.

he had a friendship with franklin roosevelt. he certainly seemed to prosper from that. he was not a bad loser. he was a winner in terms of our country and his outlook. his ability, really, to influence public use in other countries about the united states or correspondingly, american views, so that we would not become isolationist, and not become withdrawn. >> those are the thoughts of senator dick lugar and how he viewed the republican party. that was just a portion of wendell willkie pose a concession speech. did he expect to lose? >> the campaign began to go against him in october. the results were not a shot at all to wendell willkie or to anyone who was following the campaign. >> post-election, the relationship began to really grow between president roosevelt and wendell willkie. >> it is quite amazing.

all of his relationships, roosevelt's relationships are hard to nail down, but he and wendell willkie did move closer and closer together until roosevelt's death in 1944, particularly in areas of foreign policy and supporting great britain before they went into the war. >> when wendell willkie goes to europe on a tour for roosevelt as his ambassador, the famous tour in 1942, he repeats the same behavior he did at his law school graduation. roosevelt has kindly given him a state. he goes to meet with stalin on roosevelt's behalf, and what does he do? he hears that stalin needs a second front in the war, that he needs help, and he thinks maybe we could give you a second front. that was not the u.s. policy at

all. roosevelt did not like that. he did not plan to have a second front for stalin. wendell willkie called it as he saw it. when he got to russia, he said these people need help. but roosevelt, to his credit, was able to manage an upsurge. >> we're joined from phoenix, arizona. >> good evening. i would like to point out to your audience that you're getting a very one-sided economic argument on your program from your panel. she is entitled to her opinion, but she is a well-known revisionist historian who encourages the new deal. she has seven times repeated on tonight's program the canard that because unemployment was still in the low teens in 1940, the new deal had failed. i would like to point out that in her book she concedes that

the keynesian experiment worked. she writes "the spending was so dramatic that finally it functioned as keynes had hoped it would and unemployment had dropped from 22% to 14%." now granted, 13%-14% is still too high, but to say that when roosevelt came in with unemployment in the mid-high- twenties and due to can see in spending reduced it to the low- teens, earmarked as a failure, is just unfair. but she has made a career of repeating these canards and i think it needs to be pointed out to your audience. >> we will give both of our guests a chance to respond. >> i do not think we need to get too personal about this. whether you are a democrat or republican, we see both parties, the obama administration, and unemployment rate of 13% is as unacceptable

now whether you are a keynesian or not. the spending had some effect, especially in 1936, so the caller is really excising a little bit of what i wrote and giving it an interpretation i did not intend nor was visible in the text. but anyway, the 1930's were a bad period. we did not recover. we sort of appeared to recover during the war, but nobody calls for a recovery. >> my grandfather was a dirt- poor farmer at the beginning of

the new deal and a dirt-poor farmer after, but he had a framed photo of mr. roosevelt on his wall. he treated him with great respect. i, as an historian, think the new deal was a great success. i would much rather talk about wendell willkie after the election. >> let's go to william from florida first. go ahead, please. >> just as a footnote to the history of the 1940 campaign, one of the most courageous supporters the wendell willkie had was a friend of mine, the longtime mayor of syracuse, and

probably the best mayor syracuse ever had. syracuse is in the center of new york state, which was the political empire at that point. it took a great deal of courage to take on the entire state political establishment, which he did. unfortunately, when wendell willkie lost, dewey left no stone unturned to drag him out of political life. he said his mistake was that he bet on a man with a weak heart. it should be remembered that he had a very strong political

supporter in the center of new york state and i think that is a footnote to the whole thing. >> thank you for the call. you bring up an important point that we touched on in the last hour. the relationship between wendell willkie and thomas dewey. >> not a happy relationship. i do not think they ever reconciled. in the 1944 republican convention, no one bothered to invite wendell willkie to speak or even to be a delegate. he was not there. he was exercised by the party. >> under the roosevelt administration was a lend-lease program. what was that? >> we gave money, loaned money to europe, send arms, so that england could defend herself. that is the simplest way to put it. eventually, we went into the war. that was an important spending program. that is an example of one. one of the things that is happening during this period is that up until 1938 or so, 1939, roosevelt is fighting with

business. he is chasing them. one person said, why don't you either nationalize them or leave them alone? wire you chasing them around a lot every other week. but then suddenly he needed business to wage his war and instead of being the enemy, the occasional target, there they were in the white house making aluminum, not being prosecuted, making airplanes, making boats, making material for europe and for the u.s. that was an important change for business because they knew they were allies of the government and not antagonists. >> in 1941, wendell willkie travels to london. how unusual is it for a democratic president to select his republican opponent? >> he carried a letter of introduction from roosevelt to churchill. at a time when it has already been badly battered by the germans, he sees canterbury

cathedral. he gets a real sense of what this war really is for england and what the british people are doing to stand against hitler alone. he brings that message back. he brings it back to the senate and he makes a very powerful case for helping england. >> here is wendell willkie before congress. >> if we are to aid britain effectively, we should provide her with 5-10 destroyers a month. we should be able to do this directly and swiftly rather than through the rigmarole of dubious legal interpretation. i am as much opposed as any man in america to undue concentration of power in the chief executive. and may i say that i did my best to remove that power from the present executive. personally, i would have preferred to see congress,

whether through this bill or through others, instruct the president to lend or lease these things. >> in february of 1941, what was the country going through and what was wendell willkie thinking as he testifies before congress and realizes what has been happening in europe, especially in london? >> this is a country that came out of world war i and said never, never again. 30% or more of veterans were disabled in some way. the casualties were tremendous. american said its mind against war. and yet, when we had the evidence, and that is what wendell willkie was bringing home of what was happening to britain, so like us in many ways, and the evidence of hitler's utter audacity with poland and on and on, suddenly, we knew we had to help. that was a big, emotional

change for the u.s. that was a reason for the republican isolationism. there was a sense of league of nations and there was a sense of isolationism because world war i had been so incredibly wasteful of lives in every way. there comes a moment when you have to step in, and wendell willkie crystallize that for us. >> richard is joining us from san francisco as we look at the life and career of wendell willkie. hello. >> hello, i have enjoyed tremendously your author's book on the new deal. there were lots of books written, or some books written many years ago, but she has taken up the cause of those who have some doubts. one of the previous callers kind of attack you from the left. i would like to attack you from

the right. i do not understand the love affair you have with wendell willkie. i just do not comprehend it. in the case of foreign policy, particularly after the war started, he was an absolute disgrace. going to the soviet far east and looking at a labor camp and saying how wonderful conditions were was just too much. i would have thought that the republicans would have had a little bit more of a level head as far as our international commitments were concerned, particularly after the beginning of the war. at the same time, i think it is a bit much to champion a republican who the base was resentful of. i will listen to the comments of the author. thank you. >> thank you for the call. is as sentiment pretty typical of what many republicans feel? >> a lot of republicans would of said that sentiment and maybe in stronger words.

they called wendell willkie naive. they felt he was taken in. he was just a tourist. the soviets especially manipulated him. so did the chinese. he was inexperienced and not up to the level of international diplomacy and knowledge. >> and yet he received more votes than herbert hoover in 1932 or the candidate in 1936. >> he received a lot of votes for someone who allegedly had no support. this hall of television show is a love affair with wendell willkie because he is interesting on a number of levels. that does not mean he is perfect. that does not mean he is consistent.

as we said before, he is like an attorney. he moves from case to case, and those cases are not always consistent. he spoke truth to power at an important point in 1938. narratively, that was important. every case is different. we make a cartoon version in the forgotten man book. one person made a bust of wendell willkie because he was so inspired by him. there is something about him, inconsistent and disappointing as he is, that is very alluring to people. i think because he talks about what is possible, not merely what is realistic. he is an aspirational figure for a set many different points and in many different ways. >> one professor working with us on the series said wendell willkie is the personification of this 14 part series. an individual to be a lot of americans may not know much about but who had a very serious impact in his lifetime. >> i think that is a good point. i think wendell willkie brings

us to our better natures. he asks more of us. that is one of the things i like most about him. he holds out the ideals of america and ultimately the ideals of the human race, of the condition of the world. there is a lot to like about wendell willkie, even if you might think he is a little not even uninformed at times. >> georgia, go ahead. >> i will take you back to the glamour and excitement of that day in philadelphia. at the convention hall. i was there. i was there with my father who had a unique involvement at the convention. he sort of orchestrated what was known as the stampeding of the gallery. as a kid, i was up there with instruction on the cue to rise up and begin the chant of, "we want willkie." television had just come on the scene. from a national standpoint, and particularly for the delegates, to hear this raucous crowd from the gallery stampeding a

convention, it put them in the mood, although it did take a number of ballots to ultimately nominee wendell willkie. it was fun. i have never forgotten the experience. >> we should also point out a 26-year-old young republican from michigan, gerald ford, was also in attendance. he talked to c-span about that in 2000 as he went back to philadelphia for another republican convention. >> that is right. >> do you want to talk about the excitement the wendell willkie generated in the 1940 convention? >> i think we're done with that topic.

>> we will go to oliver next. >> i would like to commend c- span, one of the greatest things on television. i did not know a lot about wendell willkie. this is very interesting. i seem to remember his name was spelled with one l in my history books. but i want to ask, you talked about his mistress. was she related to charles van doren? >> she was related to those van dorens. we talked about wendell willkie's identity. what was his liberalism. rita van doren started to write about classical liberals.

that was his way of thinking about what was wrong with politics in the u.s., that it was too much about groups and too little about individuals. he started to write these articles and to talk to read a. he got his political bearings and he began to speak politically and right politically, and not just write articles, but to write manifestoes and to meet the people that then began to back him. sometimes someone comes along in your life who is a transition person, and rita was at that point such a person who helped him to clarify his ideas. >> she was also on calvin coolidge's book tour. >> she was a wonderful book editor. she edited many of these people down.

there are figures who appear over and again. coolidge was said to represent the silent majority. we certainly associate that phrase with nixon and agnew. those people last a long time, sometimes through many candidates. >> i want to play one more piece of sound from franklin delano roosevelt poser recordings. he is in the white house trying to figure out whether his relationship with rita van doren should be brought up as a campaign issue. >> this was a time when it was not common to reveal those relationships. reporters knew about those relationships. other politicians had them, including roosevelt himself, of course. but at the time, you did not write about that.

you did not report that. whether roosevelt was going to try to use that against wendell willkie is what this tape is about. >> again, this is a recording with president roosevelt on the relationship, and the affair that wendell willkie was having with rita van doren.

>> professor j. madison, two points, playing dirty politics, that conversation, and the president wondering whether edith was hired to come back and campaign with her husband. >> she loved her husband and remained with him until the end. she had a party in her apartment in new york city after wendell willkie died. she invited rita van doren to that party, behaving in an adult way. that is not a way that any of us need to approve, but that is their life, their personal life. talking about that relationship, it clearly was a romantic relationship, but it was also a

very important intellectual relationship. she was especially important to his speaking, his politics and his life. >> utah, go ahead. >> yes, i'm curious as to why wendell willkie's relationship with madam chiang has not been discussed. >> you have brought it up, so we will talk about it. >> leave that to the international hoosier scholar and. >> i think the answer is we do not really know what happened. we know that this was on the one world trip in late 1942. it included a stop in china.

we know that at one point in the evening, wendell willkie and the woman left by themselves and were gone for several hours. some people say there was a relationship there, but the evidence is very tricky. >> explain the significance of this second trip in 1942 for wendell willkie. >> roosevelt sent him on a tour. he went all over the world, including to china, russia, the middle east. often to places that were also a little bit tricky, close to the battlefield. he rolled around in an american jeep in russia. with the russian general, he said what are you all defending here, sir, and the russian general said we are not defending, we are attacking.

he was trying to send an expression of hope and support from the u.s. to these countries at the time. china was a big country in play at the time. the book he wrote, "one world," was an enormous success. so close to a million copies. david lilienthal, the old antagonist, asked how come the book sold so well. other politicians, everyone was in awe of the concept of peace now, one world. why that happened was that we were now in war. pearl harbor had happened. everyone was thinking about what kind of peace we should have after.

right away in world war ii, we were framing how to make the world safe for democracy and make the next world war not come quite so fast. all of the ideas that you hear about were formulating in people's minds, and wendell willkie was one of the first four emulators. >> david, you have read your grandfather's book. it is still available now. why did it resonates so in 1942- 1943? >> there were several reasons. number one was that he took it upon himself to visit all different war crimes at the same time. here we were in the second world war. if we think about that time, no one person had traveled around the world. no one had reported to the american people the struggles of different people around the world. why were we in this war? why did we keep going through this work?

i want to go back to some of the conversations that just happened talking about my grandfather and his development. over time, he did develop. he did change in his thought process based on what he went through, and i think the american people did too. if you think about the american people, going back and looking at the american people during the depression and moving through coming into world war ii, this was a different place. that is where "one world" came into play. here was a view of different parts of the world that people had not seen before. people had not traveled outside of their farms in the way the people are able to do now, so easily. to talk about these faraway places, baghdad, chun king, northern africa, all of these places came into play and fascinated people.

>> he said that america is like a beleaguered city, living within high walls. i have been outside of those walls, and then he tells the story of what he saw. >> he talked about at that time -- but one important thing was that national boundaries were becoming less and less important to countries in and of themselves. it was more commerce the was going to rule the day. that is what the connection is that we see now, how that commerce really does come into play. we see that now in the national discussion. even here in indiana, we have a company selling things halfway around world to baghdad right now. that idea that wendell willkie had during that time. is much of the world that we live in today, and that is described in the book. >> the book was published 70 years ago. how can you get a copy? >> you can e-mail here to the

historical society. i believe the e-mail address is up. rushhistorical@frontier.com. >> let me take our audience back a couple of blocks to a home you spent many years in. this is the same home where wendell willkie came back and talked about his one world tour. >> but i want you to remember that we can only have one president at one time and one foreign policy at one time. it does folks good to say i am not the president of the united states, that he acts through hypocrisy. no man in charge of the united states at this critical moment could act from such motives as

that. [applause] they expose the expansion of our nation, of our army, of the bill. they oppose the passage of the selective service act. if the policies which they advocate had been adopted, the united states today would be facing a victorious theism in a -- nazism in a world wide conflict in which we might ultimately be destroyed. >> as you hear and see your grandfather just a few blocks from where we are in the historical society and the message that he was delivering to those residents of indiana back in 1942, your thoughts? >> he wanted to bring those thoughts directly here to the american people, to middle america, to say there are other places that have become so

important. it is common wisdom now that if america had not entered the war at the time it did, what would europe look like? would hitler have continued and gone on in his conquest? what would stalin have done? if he could not talk to the people in indiana, he felt that it was important to go on to other places, other cities throughout the country. it would be much harder to do. >> 70 years ago this month, october of 1942, the book hits stores. did it face criticism? >> it did. it did sell many copies, people like it very much, but it had much criticism. there were many who believed that america should be america alone and not part of some

larger entity such as the un. there were many americans who had never been out of the country, never been out of the state or even the county that they lived in. the provincialism is central to inwhat willkie is trying to do this book is explain in clear language why the farmers of russia live not very differently than the farmers of rush county indiana. they are human beings and we have some obligation and some self-interest and larger interest to understand that and to act on that. >> we want to thank the historical society for hosting us here tonight. if you're interested in getting more information about wendell willkie or the book, you can e- mail us. we're joined from north

carolina. good evening. >> hello. >> please go ahead. >> i am the last surviving member i think of the roosevelt white house staff. i was there for a couple of years in the mail room. i read the incoming mail. theentering into the war was a very heavy issue at that time. the public was very, very much against it. we received a to 15,000 letters -- up to 15,000 letters a day, most of which opposed entry into the war. only pearl harbor turned public opinion around. i also want to go back to the election when wendell willkie gave his concession speech. i will never forget how tired he sounded, how heavy his voice was when he said i tried my very best to defeat franklin roosevelt. and i could not do it. he apologized to the nation for

not doing so. i just wanted to make a comment that i was an actual person involved in the issue at that time. >> thank you for adding an important dimension to our conversation. another amazing call. >> one thing about "one world," the anti-united nations people hate it, because it does lay out the framework for it, but the push for democracy is very important, right up until today. in fact, the astoundingly modern part of "one world," is that he sees through the government to the people with the democracy deficit. it is very analogous to what we

see today in the world. finding a way to democracy. when there is violence, as we saw with gaddafi, do we declare it a victory for democracy or not? we heard obama being ambivalent about that. we do not know. we think it is a victory for democracy but it is a hard call because it was so violent. he was looking for these things. >> we will go to california and then get your follow-up. go ahead. >> could you have your guests to speculate on what might happen had wendell willkie won the election? >> as much as i admire and respect wendell willkie, i am personally glad that he did not win. it's counterfactual history. we really do not know what would have happened, but roosevelt was a far better wartime leader, far better prepared and experienced to lead this nation in more than window will he would have been.

-- wendell willkie would have been. >> the go to michael next in fargo, north dakota. >> i was a little late getting to the program, but as i understand it, wendell willkie never held political office. i would be curious if his vice- presidential nominee was chosen for political experience to, i don't know, help balance the ticket, or how he came about to be appointed. >> his first choice was not selected and so it came to the party establishment to come to wendell willkie. how did this all come about and who ultimately did he choose? >> again, a traditional republican in many ways, far more acceptable to the rank and file of the republican party and the republican party leadership, so i think the caller's guess is right on. >> gym in washington, d.c., --

jim, you're next. >> very interesting program. i would like to address two questions. one was that wendell willkie was named in a newsweek article in 1960 as a model for a candidate that year. that model was george romney. he was the candidate of the republican primary, but dropped out because he made a remark about the vietnam war, but he was an industrial executive at american motors and had never really served in public office before. but he ran in the early days of the republican primary against nixon and then did not, of course, win. >> but he did serve as the governor of michigan. please continue.

>> the other president who ran for a third term was ulysses s. grant. he had been president for two terms, stepped down for a term, and was a candidate at the republican convention in 1880. he lost to james garfield. that was the other president who did seek a third term. >> thank you for the call. we had teddy roosevelt also ran for a third term under a different party after he left the white house. >> coolidge served under harding. harding died. coolidge became president and won of his own right in the next election. he could have run for another term.

easy call. the democrat always runs again when they are popular incumbent, and he chose not to run. that is a famous decision which is attributed to personnel decisions or depression. what i am discovering in researching calvin coolidge is that he chose not to run because of george washington. absolute power corrupts absolutely. he thought overtime an executive gets too used to the office. that was a concern the people had over fdr, that you do become too -- you confuse that the state is me. the more you serve, the longer you served in office. >> you can learn more on our website and get more on this program and our 14-week series, looking a presidential candidates who ran for office, lost, but changed american history.

new jersey, go ahead. >> i am a college teacher. my students have been assigned to watch and they will be so envious that i'm getting to speak to you. i loved your book. i am looking forward to the coolidge book. my question is, what is the percentage of the electorate that came out to vote in that election? was it a big percentage or not? again, i cannot wait to read the coolidge book. >> well, we do have the electoral college totals. we know that it was a landslide for franklin roosevelt. >> but we do not have the share of the turnout and we apologize for that. we will supply that on our website in 24 hours. we are sorry. we owe you., >> you see when the will be receiving just over 22 million votes, franklin roosevelt just over 27 million votes. >> it was not a landslide.

wendell willkie had done better than his republican predecessors, but it was a clear victory for roosevelt. >> david, your grandfather had a view of civil rights in this country 20 + years before we saw the civil rights movement led by martin luther king. >> he was certainly ahead of his time when it came to thinking about civil rights and the rights of all people. it was part of his creed. it was part of his code. one of the things i wanted to show you was the part of his campaign where he talks about race relations in a very direct and raw way. this was an advertisement used in an african american press at the time, how he reached out to that part of the electorate. >> again, we're trying to always get a sense of what was going on in the country. in this part of the country, in indiana, talk about the kkk and

its role in society here. >> certainly the kkk had a very strong presence here in indiana. there was a major push to keep them out of the republican party. there was division in small towns. there was an african-american population in this town, and continues to be, and throughout all towns, but the races did not mix, did not intermingle, so there was always a fearful nature. that is how wendell willkie, not only his thought process coming before the election, but also afterwards, on the one world trip. >> what about this aspect of his life, his views on civil rights? >> i think david is being unduly modest about his grandfather's position on civil rights.

he was well ahead of everyone in this country with the exception perhaps of eleanor roosevelt. it comes out of some of the same things better in one world about democracy, anti- colonialism. he was strongly opposed. he insisted that colonialism had to disappear in the name of democracy. he insisted that equality around the world could only be achieved if there were equality at home. he connected the international one world idea with the necessity of justice for all in the united states and he walked the walk. he spent a lot of time working with the naacp. he worked with hollywood filmmakers to remove the horrible racism in hollywood films in the 1930's and 1940's. in all sorts of ways, wendell willkie was an advocate for racial justice, a supremely

important advocate, long before most americans, white americans, will take that position. >> you just took the words right out of my mouth. i was just about to say that. i was just about to say, what did when the wilkins said that the african community in indiana at that time he did what did wendell willkie say about the african-american community in indiana at that time and the kkk at that time? you took the words right out of my mouth. i love your show, the contenders. i learn every day as a young african-american man who owns a home. i tried to teach my daughter and my son about presidential things. i tell them every day, you can make it, you can do it, you know. i am just thankful that you all have this show on here talking

about this great man that, hey, i do not know anything. my granddad, he is 89-years old and he tells people about history in america. i am so glad you're talking about the african-american community in indiana which was a racist-ass -- sorry about my language, but was very racist toward african-americans at that time, the 1940's. thank you for bringing this up. >> thank you. david, he is talking about his grandfather. what about your grandfather as you hear that sentiment? >> he thought that everybody was responsible just from their own meritocracy of what they would do for their own lives. that was part of his dream, is that anybody, anywhere in the world, should have that individual freedom. that was a core part of his

values. he thought if you help somebody someplace else in the world it would come back and help you. it was through hard work and struggle that we would better ourselves here as americans. going on to the race relations part, certainly he had a long, even after he died, wendell willkie, the naacp was housed in the wendell willkie freedom house in new york city. they kept that mantle that was there just because he was so far out in front of every place else. as jim matheson talked about, being in hollywood, pushing the idea of race equality. certainly as we look at what came up in the 1950's and 1960's, what would have been different if wendell willkie had been president? >> and the other question is, what this republican party -- would this party accept a

wendell willkie and his brand of politics. we asked that question of dick lugar, republican from indiana? >> i doubt that wendell willkie could win today because he was a moderate. he was a person who was looking out for the good of the whole country. there was not the same sharp partisan fever attached to his candidacy or to his rhetoric. he had a very sound business attitude, and that is why he was successful. he understood the american free enterprise system and job creation, the things that are very important to us as we look at the economic recovery now. >> what do you think about wendell willkie's politics and the republican party today? >> wonderful observation from senator lugar. i beg to differ about whether a business candidate would do well today. i think he would.

maybe it is herman cain or someone else. what we see from both parties is a desire to find someone who started a firm, who comes from the outside. a very similiar mood. when you have had a long period of non-recovery, you look outside of washington for the answers. quite similar, and that is why someone like that would get a reception, i would argue. >> he ran again in 1944 briefly. >> and not at all successfully. the republican establishment had no use for him because of his continued support to roosevelt after the 1940 election. in fact, there was some talk, not much more than talk, that roosevelt, who had his own troubles with certain democrats, of franklin roosevelt and wendell willkie coming together and forming a new political party. now there is an idea to think about for the future of america. >> our next call is erica from

washington, d.c. go ahead, please. >> thank you for doing this. it is a great show. i have a policy question if we could go back a little bit. i think i've understand the type of things the shape wendell willkie's economic beliefs and background. do know if there were any specific events that shaped his foreign policy prior to the events of world war ii? that brought that internationalist view. >> the foreign policy of wendell willkie? >> i would mention his family background. they had the experience of fleeing oppression militarism. -- prussian militarism. his grandfather was beaten for no reason by oppression soldier. it was an arbitrary exercise of authority. they came here to work as lawyers. that comes through their children especially. german americans who sought

freedom and wanted to preserve freedom. >> certainly, within the family, thinking about wendell and his life, growing up being part of world war i, his time in the army opened his eyes. the intellectual life of the family. when wendell grew up, his father would wake up his children by reading shakespeare quotes every morning. that is how they would start their day. it was an era of intellectualism. thought process that allowed him to look at side of his own surroundings in indiana. >> duncan is joining us from ohio. go ahead. >> i was just curious about the relationship he may remain not have had with huey long? >> are you familiar with that?

>> i know he defended him against criticism and charges. he defended all sorts of people who were not popular. he defended american nazis, american communists. this was part of his political belief that everyone has the right to individual freedom. he was a great patriot, in my mind. >> how did your grandfather pass away? >> he had a series of heart attacks. he was a workaholic. he never stopped. diet, exercise and genetics, although we know today about those things certainly played a role in his death. >> i think he was an exceedingly hard working person.

he was 24/7. he also lived hard. he spoke. -- smoked. he smoked heavily. i have seen pictures of him with a camel cigarettes on the desk and we know what kind of coffin nails those are. he drank heavily. he did not live what we now understand is a healthy life. >> he is buried just a few miles from where we're located. correct? >> a beautiful cemetery that is described as being looking out over the prairie, although we are not quite prairie here. he has a stone granite book lay open and talking about his life and his view of what the world should be, equality, that america was the place to be. why? because you could dream and in america you could make those dreams come true. >> if you could ask him one

question, what would it be? >> how do we bring our country together this time so that we have a political process that yields economic recovery? that we get past calling each other names to formulate a policy that gets the country to grow again. >> hugo is joining us from connecticut. welcome to the program. >> first of all, i met wendell willkie and my grandfathers, along with thomas e. dewey, two very, very fascinating public persons. i was 10-years old at the time, but i do remember distinctly both of these personalities. my grandfather was the publisher of the oldest newspaper in this country. but i will like it into history. history.get into

he was an fdr republican, my grandfather. my uncle was a socialist. but that is beside the point. the point is that i was terribly impressed as a young boy with this man. i was always in a political environment, intellectual environment, educational, historical, etc., in my family. but this man impressed me a great deal. frankly, he was the reason, as i became eligible to vote, that i became a republican. what disturbs me today is the wendell willkie republican -- the first time i voted was for eisenhower, when i was able to vote. subsequently, i became a young republican club member. subsequent to that, by

disillusionment, i lost my contact with the republican party. i hate to say this because there were so many elements in the republican party personified by wendell willkie, and thomas dewey and others that impressed me. i was just wondering, among your panelists, whether or not they could at least comment on why we have lost the essential, how can i put this? i do not know how to put this in political terms. i will put it in human terms. how we have lost the fundamental understanding of what capitalism is, political association with capitalism is, and ultimately, the nature of what is going on in our society

today, particularly among the parties? >> thank you for the call. next week, we will talk more about the personality and political career of thomas dewey as we bring you our live coverage from the roosevelt hotel in new york city. to the caller's point. >> in understand what the caller is saying and there are days when i would agree with him. but overall, most of the time, in the long run, i do not agree with the pessimistic view. i am still a great american optimist. part of my optimism is the hope that there will be candidates offering us the choices that wendell willkie offered us in 1940, and especially the wendell willkie after 1940. >> david, what was your grandfather's legacy? >> there were many aspects to his legacy. certainly, the talk about commerce, and to the caller's point, do politics and business have a place at the same table,

coming together? as we look at the economic times that we have, i would argue definitely yes. that is part of the legacy. there is also the legacy of race relations and thinking about what it means to be a citizen of the world and understand how the rest of the world affects us here in places like indiana. i would argue, yes, it can happen again. an outsider can come in and rise to the highest levels. >> why is wendell willkie important? >> he is a game changer. count on it. he is not the last willkie. that is what we're saying tonight. >> amity shlaes, the author of "the forgotten man." james madison, professor of

history at indiana university. david willkie, the grandson of, wendell willkie. we thank the rushville historical society for letting us conduct this program here. as we look typical life and -- at the life and career of wendell willkie, he passed away in the fall of 1944. here is a newsreel that reflects on his life. >> wendell willkie republican candidate for the presidency of the united states in 1940, taken suddenly at age 52. dominated by popular acclaim, wendell willkie won the admiration of all his countrymen for his energy, policy, and forthright courage. he spent the last years of his vigorous life in an effort to promote mutual understanding and good will among all nations.

he talked with churchill in london and shared experiences with britain's average folks. he visited and talked with the people of russia, of the middle east, and of china, renewing his strong faith in the unity of all people. a great american and world citizen who will be sorely missed in the critical years ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the contenders features profiles for people who lost the change the political nature. we will be in new york city

talking with historians and taking your calls about the campaign of thomas dewey. the series airs every friday night and day p.m. eastern through december 9. you can see at this program began on sunday at 10:30 eastern. for more information on the series, and go to our website at c-span.org. schedule, and biographies, appraisals, and speeches. next, president obama's announcement concerning u.s. troop withdrawal in iraq following by a briefing on the announcement. after that, carl levin on u.s. relations with pakistan. >> six republican candidates

travel to the morning for the freedom coalition forum. watch our coverage of herman cain, and rick santorum as well as rick perry and ron paul and michele bachman starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on saturday on the road to the white house. >> president obama announces that all u.s. troops will be out of iraq by january 1. this sends the wrong course of began in 2003 under george w. bush. here is that statements made in the white house press room. >> i pledged to bring the war in iraq to irresponsible land for

the sake of our security and the strength of leadership around the world. after taking office, i announced a new strategy that would then air combat missions in iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. as commander in chief, insuring the success of this strategy has been one of my highest priorities. last year i announced an end to our common mission in iraq and today we have removed more than 100,000 troops. rockies have taken responsibility for the security. a few hours ago, i spoke with the prime minister. i reaffirmed that the united states keeps its commitments and determination of the iraqi people to forge their own future. we are in agreement about how to move forward. so today i can report that the

rest of our troops will come home by the end of the year. after nearly nine years, the war will be over. or the next two months, our troops, and tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and journey home. the last american soldier will cross the border with their head held high, proud of their success and knowing that the american people are united in our support for them. that is when they will end. as we mark this milestone, we are moving into a new phase in the relationship between the united states and iraq. as of january 1 and in keeping with our strategic framework agreement with air, there will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, and equal partnership based on mutual interests and mutual respect. into the's conversation the

prime minister and i agreed that a meeting of the higher coordinating committee of the strategic from agreement will convene in the coming weeks, and i invited the prime minister to come to the white house in december. this will be a strong and enduring partnership with our diplomats and civilian advisers in the lead and will help iraqis strengthen institutions that are just and accountable. when will build new ties of trade and commerce and education that unleashes the potential of the iraqi people. we will partner and iraq that contributes to regional security and peace, just as we insist that other nations respect iraq's sovereignty. as i told the prime minister, we will continue discussions on how we might help iraq trained and equipped its forces, again, just as we are getting training

and assistance to countries around war. -- the world. there will be some difficult days ahead for iraq's, and united states will continue have an interest in an iraq that is stable, secure, and self- reliant. just as the iraqis have persevered through war, i'm confident they can build a future or the other history as the cradle of civilization. here at home, in the coming months, there will be another season of homecomings. across america, our service men and service women will be united with their families. today i can say that our troops in iraq will definitely be home for the holidays. this december will be a time to reflect on all that we have been through in this war. i will join the american people and pay tribute to the more than 1 million americans who have served in iraq and we honor our many wounded warriors and the patriots and the iraqi and coalition partners who gave

their lives for this effort. i would note that the end of war in iraq reflexed a larger transition. the tide of war is receding. the drop down in iraq allow us to refocus our fight against al qaeda and the chief -- and achieve major victories against its leadership. now as we removed our last troops from iraq, we're beginning to bring our troops home from afghanistan, where we have begun a transition to afghan security and leadership. when i took office roughly 180,000 troops were deployed in both these wars, and by the end of this year that number will be cut in half. make no mistake, it will continue to go down. meanwhile, yesterday marked the definitive evan and the quest the definitive and of the gaddafi regime in libya. today nato is working to bring this successful mission to a

close. to sum up, the united states is moving forward from a position of strength. a long war in iraq will come to an end by the end of this year. the transition in afghanistan is moving forward, and our troops are finally coming home. as they do, fewer deployments and more time training will help keep our military the very best in the world, and as we welcome home our veterans, we will never stop working to give them and their families that care, the benefits, and the opportunities that they have aren't. -- earned. this includes an listing our veterans in the greatest challenge that we now face as a nation, creating opportunity and jobs in this country. after a decade of war, the nation that we need bill is the nation that we will build, and it is our own, an america that

sees its economic strength restored. >> the announcement concerning u.s. to its trawls followed by a briefing on the announcement by the national security adviser. >> thank you for being here this afternoon. we will continue with the briefing. i have with me the president's deputy national security adviser on my left, and on my right the vice president's

national security adviser. yourre here to take questions about the announcement just made. after that, you can give yoru questions -- your questions on that subject, and then i will remain to take your questions. >> nine years complete withdrawal -- this is a victory for the united states -- >> one of the more poignant moments was when president obama congratulated prime minister maliki and the people of iraq for getting to this moment. and the president -- and the prime minister congratulate the president for the troops and

what they have done. the president said what we are looking for is an iraq that is as secure, stable, and self reliance, and that is what we have here. >> specifically, long discussions covered issues of unity. has that issue been recalled -- resolved? >> the present preferred was for the best relationship for the united states going forward. that is what we have now as a result of the work of our commanding general of there, the ambassador, and what we have done of the course of these last three years is indicate -- the president indicated his not only commitment to fulfilling that agreement, but his willingness to hear out iraqis on what of relationship they want going forward.

we talk about communities. the decision -- and the president will insist on our trips having what they need no matter where they are. the decision that you heard the president talk about today is reflective of his few and the prime minister's view of the kind of relationship we want going forward. relationship is a normal rush of that is based on a civilian presence in the lead, but also will have important security components as harker relationships diplomatic -- as our relationships around the world have -- jordan, egypt, other countries that have security components. we had exactly what we needed to protect our interests, and the iraqis feel the same. >> are you confident that the iraqi security forces are very well equipped to take on these responsibilities without any further training?

>> we feel proud of the work that our guys have done, civilian and military, in training iraqis. they have worked together over the course of these last several years, not only trained together, but the ploy, a partner together, robustly, and as we have done this, over the course of the last seven or eight months, a full review of where we stand with iraqis, one assessment after another about the iraqi security forces came back saying these guys are ready, they are capable, these guys are proven. they're proven because they have been tested in a lot of the kinds of the tests they see going for. we feel good about that. >> even though they are coming home, major attacks continue in iraq. what prevented an agreement being reached from training?

independent analysts said trading was essentials to get the troops in order. >> it is important to point out that we have the capacity to maintain trainers. the offers of security cooperation in iraq will have the capacity to train iraqis on the new kinds of weapons and weapon systems that the iraqis are going to buy, including a portly the f-16's just purchased just about a month ago. but her you will see opportunities in naval exercises, a part in 80's and had an increase in the air force training. security cooperation in -- with the iraqis that we have with allies are around the war.

-- world. the suggestion that there's not going to be training is not accurate. [unintelligible] the main purpose the effort that we undertook over the course of not only the last several months, but also over the last several years, is the establishment of a normal relationship that allows them in the region of a considerable unrest of the moment to chart the kind of secure future they want. that was the goal, not some kind of an arrangement around in unity. and getting this kind of coal, a filling -- fulfilling the circle of debt secured relationship, we got exactly what we needed. >> to the iraqis say that the same mission was accomplished?

>> does this leave an open door for iran to exert influence in iraq? is there a plan to counter? >> as he sat now in 2011, after years of the kind of united international pressure that they have seen over the last several years, that kind of robust outcry over the kind of activity that we saw announced last week as it relates to them not living up to their obligations under the convention to which they are party to predict the elements -- you're seeing and around that is -- iran that is weaker and more isolated. we do not need to exercise our influence on those matters to iraq. we frankly deed that as a matter of course through the united nations by laterally. so we are concerned about iran's and willingness to live

up to obligations, be that on something as simple as protecting diplomats wherever they are serving. we of concerns about that, i do not have concerns about our ability to make sure the iraqis can exercise sovereignty they want. it is important to highlight one critical fact as we look at iraq's future. if you see the kind of increased production of iraq will production as usc of the next crest as you have seen the last few years, this is one indicator of that very few positive future so that the iraqis have in front of them. >> how can you be assured of the security of diplomats and contractors who will stay in iraq? >> it is something we are spending a great deal of time

on, and we have insisted for our diplomatic presence -- we will maintain an embassy there. we have embassies around the world. we have to assume a basic amount of protections for our people, and that is what we have communicated to the iraqis. we continue to insist that the iraqis help us in protection of our diplomats. we will ensure the kind of standard protections of our diplomatic personnel, to include marine security details, but we will also make sure that working with contractors can have the kind of protection they need. >> even have an estimate at how many security contractors -- do you have an estimate of how many security contractors will be left behind? >> 4000, 5000, in the various forms of security that are left behind. we have three diplomatic posts,

basra, another city, and in baghdad. we will continue to negotiate this with iraqis, but we will make sure we have the other kind of presence we need, both as it relates to their fixed site security, and their ability to move around. >> was this five or six years ago there was concern that civil war was going to break out what concerns do you have about how secure the sunnis or kurds will in this new sovereignty? >> what you see is that politics has taken hold in iraq, and they are figuring out how to resolve their differences

through a political process. it is not always pretty, linear, but the work through their problems to the political system, and that has to get a lot of the fuel out of the sectarian problems. of course there continues to be a security challenge. if you go back to 2007, 2008, there were 1500 security incidents every week. now we're down to 100 per week. this has been sustained over the last couple of years. the bottom line is we think that because the iraqi security forces are increasingly competent and capable in dealing with internal security and because of the emergence of politics of doing business, the sectarian -- is unlikely to be lit again, the sectarian fuse. >> 32,000 wounded.

was this war worth it? >> history will have to judge that. what we can say is that our troops have performed remarkably over that period of time, and our diplomats are doing the same. the result is that today we are in a place where iraq is emerging as a secure, stable, and self-allied country, and that was the goal. as of the rest of what that is up to history. >> can i ask a question on pakistan. was there any reassurance from the pakistanis that they would stop me haqqani network? >> the secretary bus trip was a high-level trip that included many of our high colleagues from the national security council. others in the national security council.

we are appreciative of the secretary of leading this effort. about the security situation, not just in pakistan and afghanistan. as it relates to the particular conclusions of the visit, we will leave that to the secretary and her delegation. but the president is obviously appreciative that the secretary led the delegation and a delegation, in its makeup and seriousness underscores the strength of our conviction about these matters. >> the mechanics, for people watching and trying to see -- whether families are on for the holidays. how will this happen and break down? how people -- quickly will people get home and be in a responsible way?

>> i will leave it to the pentagon to brief about it. but i will make one comment. i happen to be in iraq over the weekend and happen to see some of things general austin and his team are a section waiting on the ground. absolutely unbelievably powerful demonstration allow our, not only our strength and capacity, military strength and capacity, but also commitment to making sure that we do this the right way. so, we are seeing every piece of equipment every closely accounted for. it is being accounted for. it is being then assigned to where it will end up. a degree of care for this and scrutiny to this effort that i think, as with the rest of this effort, but all of us very proud and, frankly, very appreciative of what they are doing. >> a quick follow-up of libya. at the video that appears that, that the ban was alive, injured,

dragged around and be enough -- gaddafi was alive and injured, then dragged around. after he was killed there was a lot of anger on the arab street about how it played out and now the u.n. is planning an investigating what happened. are there concerns about what happened on the ground in libya and are you going to back a u.n. investigation? >> bottom line is, this obviously has been a dynamic 24 hours. getting additional information ourselves about what exactly transpired. we are in very close contact with our nato colleagues and i know there are looking at is today, so i will not get out in front. we always have concerns about exactly what is happening in each of these situations. frankly, our concern for the situation in libya is exactly what the president took the kind of bold and decisive action

he took several months back. but the fact that i have concerns does not lead me to want to get out in front of the facts, either. >> considering that you had a turkish troops having to chase kurds in iraq -- there has been a rise in violence inside iraq. what about it gives of the unit -- united states confidence you are leaving a more secure iraq's? >> the first thing i would do is this associate myself from the comments prepared two, at various times he had seen spectacular attacks across iraq. frankly, that is one of the techniques of some of the insurgent groups. we see they tried to do it once every several weeks or months to get attention. but the fact is, chuck, you can't say the numbers of attacks have gone up in iraq. it has gone dramatically down. as tony suggested, more than a

tenfold, ab -- even 15-fold decrease in the course of the last couple of years. that is one indication of progress. the other, of course, is the capacity of the iraqi security forces. every study and assessment we saw in the course of the last several months came back with the same conclusion. these guys are very capable against the threat that as most present. 3, is the point tony made and the vice president has been critical in helping bring about, is politics has broken out in iraq and people are resolving the differences in the kind of political and democratic way that i think just a few years ago we all could have only hoped for, and obviously it gives us reason for great hope. >> the strategy in libya versus what we are seeing, the decisions made in iraq, versus the decisions that were made in yemen, for instance, fitting together in the obama doctrine? >> as tony said, historians will be busy laying out a

doctrine. but he is very committed to making sure we remain secure. and the threats to our security are different in and it -- every country. in fact, we have to be nimble enough to address those concerns with the ability that allows us to confront them but not get bogged down with any particular kind of threat. what we are seeing is a more dynamic threat environment. so, again, i will let the historians, the theoreticians lay down with the doctrine is but having worked now for the president for about five years, he does not take anything as a serious leg as he does, knowing what the threats are, identifying them, and then bringing overwhelming power to bear to neutralize those threats. that is going to be different in different countries. i think as you have watched over the last couple of years, he has not been bound up by a particular ideology, but rather

bound up specifically by his interest in making sure we neutralize the threats. >> can you explain to some of the critics of this decision how the administration will ensure none of the progress will be rolled back? >> i think the president indicated in his remarks, what we have seen is tremendous progress over the last several years by the iraqis. you see tremendous capability, not only in their ability to carry out security operations but also in their ability to carry out democratic and political operations, which is to say, they are much more interested frankly in a political resolution to their ongoing disputes. the other thing is we also have to recognize that that the president laid out in his speech in 2009 down at camp lejeune, we set a very clear set of objectives -- and iraq that it is secure, stable, and self-

reliant. that is exactly what we have. our ability to maintain a robust and diplomatic presence there, our ability to maintain ongoing training efforts with the iraqis, all of that will contribute to our ability to work with our iraqi colleagues to ensure that they can maintain the great gains they have made. but i also think the lesson of the arab spring it is also quite important, which is that representative governments that listen to their people and that conduct elections are ultimately going to be much more secure. i think in that regard, the iraqis have a leg up on a very dynamic situation. >> i think it is important to look back over the last three years, the president said he would do a number of things and he has done every single one of them -- at every juncture in iraq security has not gone backward.

we started out we had 150,000 american troops in iraq, we said we would be out of the cities in the summer of 2009, ending the not get worse, they got better. by december 2010 we said we would end a combat mission and get down to 50,000 troops, and we moved forward. the president has committed repeatedly to both fell in the security agreement and bring all of our troops home at the end of this year and we are on track. as we discussed, security incidents have gone down, not up. iraqi security forces have gone up and not down and politics has become the way to do business in iraq. for all of those reasons, we already have a track record to suggest that the security of iraq and move forward. >> has the u.s. scene uptick and violence are around the time of transition? >> what we have seen our

efforts of extremists -- extremas use this period of dynamism and train to take advantage of the situation and to threaten our guys and the iraqis. what you are seeing is especially over the last couple of months, because of the great work of general austin and our troops, less and less successful in their doing that. frankly, i think you are seeing more and more frustration on behalf of iraqis because oftentimes what these extremist groups are doing when they are trying to threaten our troops is they are killing more iraqis. so, that all contributes to the kind of developments that make us feel as positively as we do about the situation we find ourselves in. but again, just going back to chuck's question, we will remain vigilant on this, as we have threats from southeast asia to north africa. the bottom line is, not only is it we have done what we said we

would do in iraq, the president has done exactly what he said we would do from iraq, the horn of africa, across the arabian peninsula, throughout south asia and all the way to southeast asia. so, we will stay on the offense on these set of threats, and also come in so doing, take advantage of the great opportunities out there at the moment. so, we feel very good about it, as i think you heard the president suggests. >> connie, over here. >> is the u.s. considering selling or leasing drones to turkey against the pkk, and helping iraq to defend its airspace? >> on iran, the president has been very clear about what we

expect from the iranians. i am not sure how you are characterizing might view of the iranian threat, but i just want to be very clear. we have big expectations that the iranians live up to their obligations in the international community, be that in human rights, nuclear responsibility, or be that even as something as simple as protecting diplomats. secondly, as it relates to turkey, obviously as you saw the president expressed significant concern about the attacks on southeastern turkey earlier this week. we are awe is sustained in close touch with our turkish allies but i did not have anything specific to announce right now. relating to iraqi air sovereignty, we will continue to work with the iraqis as it relates to the full range of security and training opportunities and the needs of the ss.

we can do that fully in the context of formal -- fully normalized relationships as the president laid out a couple of minutes ago. >> the video conference, the poignant moment you spoke about -- it does not sound like the conclusion of the video conference was surprised. the president was preparing obviously for the conference. can you talk about why it was a poignant morning and what he talked about concerning his reflections. >> maybe tony has something more poetic than i do. but i just said i thought it was a poignant exchange because of what appeared to need to be genuine appreciation on behalf of the iraqi prime minister for all of the sacrifice. in fact, he called out all of the sacrifice that our troops and their families have, and our diplomats and families, have put on the line for iraq's future. that is not new to me as it relates to the president of the united states. he obviously has live best quite vividly on numerous

occasions. but i just thought it was an important moment where the two leaders expressed their view that having set out on this effort about three years ago, now they feel like they have got into a very important point where they can take this next that, pursuant to this agreement, but also continue forward with the kind of robust partnership that i think they recognize our troops and diplomats have built over the last couple of years. >> does the president support the turkish incursion into northern iraq to? >> i am not going to get into the specifics on this, but i will say we obviously worked very closely with our turkish friends about their ongoing concerns from such attacks. we obviously designated a certain of the kurdish forces as designated foreign terrorist

organizations. i will not get into it anymore than that. i will see what the coming days and weeks of all but we will remain in close contact with our service allies. >> you made reference at one point to iraqi oil. iraq and libya are very wealthy countries. will the u.s. asked for financial reimbursement from iraq and libya and what you see as future u.s. relations with syria now against hamas question and i can you repeat the last question -- syria and hamas? >> as for asking for reimbursement, i did not anticipate that. as it relates to syria and hamas, we have been clear about what we expect from syria. we will see whether after now several months of allowing themselves to fall into deeper and deeper isolation, whether they made the right choice. but i think the president has been quite clear on this, as has the secretary of state.

>> what about hamas in regards to the prisoners 1? >> i think jay has talked a lot of the prisoner remarks the last couple of days so i associate with his remarks. >> i question is a follow-up. are you offering new assistance to iraq or to libya in light of the announcement. if not, why not? >> we have a very robust security assistance program with the iraqis. it is textured and includes the kinds of things like military sales we saw with been f-16 purchase, but other pieces of it. that is a matter of public record. it is passed every year by congress. so, we anticipate that being a very important part of this robust and textured important security relationship going forward. as it relates to the libyans, we obviously continue to work with the tnc about what we expect from a representative government.

working with our partners and allies to indicate what kind of support we will provide in the future. but there is no significant changes in our assistance since yesterday. >> had debriefed any members of congress prior to his decision, and -- has he briefed any members of congress prior to this decision, and if not, why? >> we did brief members of congress. in number of us on the phone with senate and house leadership and other members to brief them on the president's conversation with the prime minister and to brief them on what the president intended to say. of course, over long over these many weeks and months we have been in regular contact with members of both houses. on iraq, what we were doing, and what we were planning, and the main point is that the president all along has been absolutely consistent in saying what he would do and doing what he said he would do, and that is where we all -- are today.

it was the speaker's office on the call? -- >> was the speaker's office on the call? was involved in that? >> yes. >> protection for embassies, how many troops will be sent there to protect embassies? >> there will be no troops to provide security to embassies other than the standard marine security detail, which we have at embassies and every country in the world. other than the marine contingent that provides security, there will be no troops kept in iraq for security of the embassies. for the security of our embassy and two consulates, we will contract with security contractors to provide -- as i said again -- fixed site security as well as movement security when our guys go out and do their job in the country. >> [inaudible]

>> the president is working this and secretary geithner and summer -- we will let them work on that. >> the last two. >> the president is emphasizing the troops coming home by the end of the year. how many should expect to be redeployed may be in afghanistan? >> you heard the president's remarks underscore we are continuing in afghanistan but the number of u.s. detroit -- deployed overseas has been robustly reduced. as it relates to the specific deployment schedules, i will leave that to the pentagon to brief you through the specifics of that. the fact of the matter is given that we are looking at dramatically fewer u.s. troops deployed overseas as a result of these, you can't extrapolate you will see a less robust

rotational effort. but again, i will leave the pentagon to come in. >> last one for these guys, and i will stay. >> thank you. i would like to ask both gentleman, the withdrawal of troops even by those who support it, nonetheless is questioned about given -- giving the exact number of the troops leaving and when they will be gone, like telegraphing a message to possible enemies. what do you say about that criticism? >> i will try first. security agreements negotiated and signed in 2008 by the bush administration stipulated this date -- december 31, 2008 -- at the end of the military presence. so, that has been in law now or been enforced now for several years.

so, it is difficult to rebut the proposition that this was a known date. by the same token, i think individual decisions that our commanders are making are informed by their assessment as it relates to individual movements and security related there with, and we feel very good and frankly very appreciative of their efforts in that regard. >> no effort to contact the office of -- >> there was a call to many members of congress from both houses, including leadership. of over both invited. both parties. absolutely. >> the only thing to add dd other dates were well known in advance. it was well known we would be out of the cities and the summer of 2009 and the situation improved. it was long known we were going to change our mission in the

summer of 2010, ended the combat mission, and get down to 50,000 troops. again, security continued to improve. and there is something very important about the united states keeping its commitments. it sends a very strong and powerful message throughout the region inside iraq and countries outside of iraq. >> thanks, guys. >> next, carl levin on u.s. relations with pakistan. then virginia congressman frank wolf on the situation in libya. after that, in discussion of the impact of rising gasoline prices. tomorrow on "washington journal" the latest on the deficit reduction committee. susan keating, from the national credit counseling foundation, talks about programs for consumers. and the director of george

washington university's animal law program discusses how states deal with the ownership of exotic animals, as well as welfare and safety concerns. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. a>> to me, it is very obvious what all of the priorities we have, until further notice, every decision the national government makes, every close call should be mader in favor of economic growth. every tie should be broken in favor of growth of the private sector. >> he worked as director in the reagan white house, and is governor of indiana. he implemented spending cuts that produced a billion dollar budget surplus. mitch daniels on his new book, the economy, and his decision not to run for president in 2012. >> senate armed services

committees carl levin says the u.s. should be prepared to defend its troops if pakistan does not address threats. he made these comments on the council for foreign relations, before president obama announced that troops would be out of iraq before the end of the year. he also been cursed them to go after the terrorist organization list. this is just over one hour. >> a reminder to turn up yourself of and this is an on the record briefing. >> now you tell me. an honor for me but similar to introduce senator carl levin, senior senator from the great state of michigan. one of the foremost voice is in the senate on foreign affairs and one of the voices in my tenure as overseas for abc that i listened to most intently. he knows his stuff well. today, talking about afghanistan and pakistan -- senator carl levin was in afghanistan and pakistan just in august.

in any other year it would give us enough to talk about what this year there are headlines every 24 hours. i have the privilege -- privilege of asking him about the events in the past 24 hours in libya as well. i am sure you have questions along the lines on this chapter and further chapters to come in that country. a privilege for me to be here and introduced the senator. he will make a few more -- remarks and then go on to questions. [applause] >> that is my staff down here, by the way. [laughter] >> good morning, everybody. it finds for inviting me back to the council on foreign relations. your work makes a significant contribution to our national discourse and the most pressing on policy issues of our day, and i am always glad to join with you in discussing those issues.

if i kind of knock off either during my own speech or questions, don't take it personally -- if i kind of nod off. the senate was in until about 1:30 a.m. last night and there are some reporters here who usually cover the senate, and i've question for you. where were you at 1:30 a.m. last night? last october i came here to discuss president obama's decision to begin reducing u.s. troop presence in afghanistan. that a decision of the president was under attack in various quarters. i felt that the deduction -- the reduction of our forces, which was supposed to begin last july, and did it began last july, was vitally important, because it would provide a strong incentive for the afghans to take responsibility for their own security, which, in turn, is essential to the success of

our mission, and that mission is to help build a stable afghanistan, able and willing to fight off attempts by the taliban to retake control. two months ago, as jim said, i made my sixth trip to afghanistan. afghan, u.s., and other coalition forces are making significant military progress. security is improving in the south, and our military commanders are increasingly focused on the east where the insurgent threat remains resilience, particularly the threat from the haqqani network operating out of safe havens in pakistan. the capabilities of the afghan national security forces are growing both in quantity and quality. afghan army and police are almost 50,000 men stronger than

when we met here last year. afghan forces are conducting a greater proportion of the missions and are increasingly in the lead. just this week, "the new york times" reported that afghan troops led a lengthy, intends operation to clear insurgents from a key supply route in a province. we are succeeding in training the afghan army and other security forces to a higher level of effectiveness. and the afghan local police program has shown initial success. in that program, our special operations forces live with and trained afghan, local afghans -- and that is important -- that is selected by the village elders. their goal is to defend their own villages against the insurgents. finally, transition of secure the responsibility is moving forward -- security responsibility is moving forward as afghan forces have

taken the lead in several areas. afghan leaders continue to show they understand the urgency of preparing for afghan security forces taking the lead on security throughout afghanistan in 2014, a date set by president obama and karzai, a date endorsed by the international coalition. i have long believed that the taliban's worst nightmare is and afghanistan secured by a strong and effective afghan forces that have the support of the afghan people. that nightmare is becoming the taliban's reality. this transition to afghan control does not mean that the united states will abandon afghanistan. the strategic partnership agreements being negotiated between the united states and afghanistan will play an important role in demonstrating

to the afghan people and the neighbors of afghanistan that the united states intends to remain engaged in afghanistan and the region. now, of course, significant challenges remain. and if they are not effectively address, they could undermine security gains achieved at a great cost. first, the government of afghanistan needs to increase its legitimacy with the afghan people. it needs to improve government, improve services, and the corruption, improve inclusiveness, transparency, and in hear it -- and adherence to the rule of law. we should also not ignore the fact there has been some progress even in those areas. for instance, more than 2 million afghan girls are in school today compared to almost none in 2001.

infant mortality has fallen rapidly, and access to health care has expanded. surely, there is a long way to go. while we encourage and pressure the afghan government to provide good government, we cannot guarantee that. only the afghans can do that. hopefully the lessons of the arab spring have reached afghanistan. leaders who failed to deliver accountable and transparent governance lose their legitimacy and they are more and more funding that their political survival is at risk. even if the president karzai governance does not succeed without security, the greatest threat to security and afghanistan and the focus of my remarks this morning is that the threat posed by the safe havens that harbor in surgeons across the border in pakistan. the haqqani network in particular has used its sanctuary in pakistan to launch deadly attacks on coalition

forces in afghanistan. attacks by the operatives of the network include the attack on the hotel intercontinental in kabul in june that killed 21 people and the attack just last month on the u.s. embassy. the threat emanating from these safe havens is nto new. we have known about it for years and we repeatedly pressed the pakistanis to act. i have seen personally how pakistan's government has stalled and dissembled on this issue. i have repeatedly, personally urged the president, the prime minister, and the general, and the pakistani army chief of staff, in hearings both here and in washington to act to

eliminate these terrorist sanctuaries. typical of these experiences was the pakistani response during my august visit. i raised the issue of safe havens in pakistan. when we asked what the military had not gone into the area to eliminate these save havens, we heard the same excuses. about how the pakistani army was already over-committed elsewhere. i then pressed prime minister gilani to explain why. if pakistan for whatever reason can or will not clear out these safe havens, why is it that senior pakistan officials have not at least publicly condemned the deadly cross-border attacks by the haqqanis?

prime minister gilani said his government had publicly condemned these attacks. but he backed down when i asked him to provide examples of these public statements. i said, "send me the clipping." he said, "well, they are lower level officials who make those statements." what has been apparent for years is that pakistan's military intelligence, the isi, remains in contact with the haqqani network and provide support to this group. even as in surgeons engaged in attacks against our forces. the u.s. ambassador recently said in connection with the attack on the u.s. embassy that there was evidence linking the haqqani network to the pakistani government.

admiral mullen's testimony last month before my committee that the haqqani network acts as an arm of the pakistani isi was a sharp declaration by our top military officer who is known as a friend of pakistan. we owe it to our military, the men and women who put on the uniform of the united states, that when we send them into harm's way, that we challenge pakistan over its support for the extremist groups that are attacking our troops and afghan troops and civilians from their own pakistan territory. it is simply unacceptable for the united states to spend its blood and treasure so afghanistan does not once again become a breeding ground for militant extremists while pakistan protect terrorists who cross the border to attack us.

pakistan cannot evade its responsibility over its role in allowing and supporting these attacks. at the least, pakistan needs to condemn the attacks of the haqqanis in pakistan, and pakistani officials must end their denial of the plain truth. the head of the isi called the testimony baseless and denied the haqqani network was even in pakistan and claimed pakistan had not provided the haqqanis a penny or single bullet. the president wrote recently about the losses it to pakistan has suffered from extremist groups. then on terrorizing the pakistani people, but he failed to mention, much less condemn,

the attacks that haqqani and taliban extremists are conducting against our forces in afghanistan. so what actions are open to us to correct the situation? if pakistan will not take on that the threat from the haqqanis based in pakistan who attack our forces, then we should be prepared to take steps to defend our troops. it is consistent with established principles of international law of the united states to defend itself and to defend afghanistan against cross-border attacks by insurgents based in pakistan and to respond to those attacks. and to respond to those attacks. the recent report that a haqqanis reporter was killed in strike, in an area that

was off-limits, is an example of the kind of action that is overdue. we have the right, the target, the forces in afghanistan and in pakistan, but to target the people controlling those forces as well. as the secretary has said, the message that the pakistani need to know is that we will do everything we can defend our forces. when we do that, and predict that we will have strong support, bipartisan support in the u.s. congress. we should inform pakistan that it should not expect to normalize this relationship. with the united states, as long as it provides a safe haven for

violent extremist groups were used terrorists as proxy's against other countries. we may not be able to persuade pakistan that its activities are counterproductive and afford the security of the region. we must let them know that clearly as the second -- secretary clinton did yesterday, that it is a hindrance to a normal or relationship with the united states. the pakistanis have interfered with attempts regarding reconciliation in afghanistan obstructing peace talks unless they can control -- exercise control over the taliban group involved and control over the substance of the talks. obstruction of reconciliation efforts in afghanistan is also an impediment.

it is long past due for the united states to call the network for what it is and have the extremist group on the list. it should be listed alongside pakistan and taliban, and al qaeda as a foreign terrorist organization, keeping the haqqanis does not encourage the group to join the reconciliation process, nor has it prevented pakistani isi for continuing its support for the economy. this is a foreign terrorist burden -- and designating them as a foreign terrorist organization sends a message that we will respond to the report of the extremist organization nobody wants the

u.s. pakistan relationship to return to the early 1990's, when the u.s. is engaged. nowhere are the effects of that disengagement felt more strongly than in our bilateral military relations. a whole generation of pakistani offices had no contact with their u.s. counterparts through such programs as the military education and training program. this has contributed to anti- americanism among those now senior pakistani -- pakistanis in office. their right to say that a flawed relationship with pakistan is better than none at all. we do need to stay engaged with pakistan and try to act together with our interest

aline. we should attempt to understand the motivations of pakistan in is the concerns, even when we disagree with them. we should seek to build a bilateral relationship based on our shared interest and democratic dahlias, security and stability -- democratic values, security and stability. we need to improve a flawed relationship. the foreign minister of pakistan recently said that the united states in allegations and the isi and haqqanis connections, the united states would lose an ally. our response should be that the only option that pakistan

presents us is a choice between losing an ally and continuing to lose our troops, then we will choose the former. my thanks for the invitation and i would be happy to try to answer some of your questions. thank you. [applause] >> so much to talk about. to an early and vocal opponent, already in people are making comparisons to what happened in libya to what happened in iraq.

a few weeks of a joint nato air operation. is it a fair comparison to make? is it a policy template for the u.s., should we get involved in theory? we know the reasons why it would be more difficult. is this a new policy template we can apply to other countries? >> it is a template. it easily fits syria. i wish it did. syria as a dictator like libya. the reason i think it is a template is that it was an operation that had international support.

in the arab world by the arab league. second lane it was not led by s. we made a significant contribution to its success. it showed that nato can still be effective. i think that is very important. the one alliance in the world that has a worldwide impact and can impact other places. i think there are important strengths and the lessons to be learned. i give our president a lot of thoughtfulness in how he approached this issue. he insisted that there be leaders that have international

support. the reasons for its success, i can attribute to that plus the extraordinary way in which modern technology was used by the people, first and foremost in dealing with social networking. in the technology used in the military to have a real impact putting the boots on the ground, which is something we need to avoid a finance. all of those factors and aspects are really important. in syria, you cannot have international support for action, he did not have the support in the arab world. those are the most important factors i believe that contribute to the success. >> another point that struck me as you watch those videos of the

son of gaddafi kill. he was alive when he was taken. we do not know how it happened. the government claims he was shot in the crossfire. it seems difficult to believe to watch that happen, what does it say about the ability to run a government fairly and justly no extra judicial -- [unintelligible] to watch that happen, what does this say about the ntc's ability to run a government fairly and justly if the immediate reaction

under the umbrella of nato protection and execution of the leader and his sons? >> i do not think it was a summary execution. i do not know enough. i doubt that our briefers know enough. i do not know if he was caught in a crossfire. we will know more about that perhaps as of today's move on. we do not know an awful lot. they are not gelled, and i do not know if it is clear yet what direction they will take. there is the risk that they will move in the wrong direction, but there is a lot of evidence that there will be the potential of the government that will respect the rule of law and honor at least a far greater extent than their predecessors the human rights of their people, and all we can do is do everything we can to contribute in the right direction. with the international community that was so important in support of this effort, we put as much -- we lean on the new government so they moved in the right direction. >> ok, pakistan. admiral mullen got some grief

from his comments, some saying that he went too far because of calling the haqqani network a variable arm of the isi. do you believe that? are they looking the other way and not doing enough? you believe they are actively supporting. >> they are. there is active support as well as allowing a safe haven to exist. there are intelligence reports and other direct support. my opening statement that morning that admiral mullin appeared in front of us was very, very similar to what he was saying. and others in our government, it was not as if what he was saying was so new but it was sharper than what the previously said and was covered very, very well. he said exactly what he meant to say.

i think a slight move away from that that we saw from the white house spokesman is not nearly as important or significant as what he said. >> in my own experience there, you see secretary clinton on the ground. something about the snake in the backyard does not only by your neighbor. the point being, these groups are going to threaten you, and the pakistani government. this state of denial in the country because from the top levels of government to taxi drivers, when you ask them about attacks from the taliban, they say it is probably the americans. that denial seems to infiltrate a very influential people. do in your experience do pakistani officials and military leaders get the threat that they can be in those cross hairs? do they get that point? >> they clearly get the point

that terrorists threaten them, because terrorists do threaten them. they have taken huge losses domestic and internal. i do not think they need to be taught or understand the lesson about -- >> but i am talking about an existential threat to their power. >> i think terrorism can be an existential threat to pakistan as a matter of fact. and what it produces and the reaction to it, if not strong, can be an existential threat. what they do not really except, obviously, is it that they are condoning the use of their land as a safe haven for terrorism and the relationship between part of their intelligence and the haqqani network as well as

the afghan taliban. that represents a threat to their relationship with us. i do not think they fully understand that. the denial that you refer to is that the denial of what the facts are both in terms of the relationship between the isi and between the facts that the haqqanis are located there. for there top officials to say that they are not even here in pakistan is kind of the epitome of denial. what they have done is bought time. they've tried to buy peace. they have tried to take a group which can threaten them, the haqqanis, and buy them off by saying we will let you operate from here and get you some support if you focus on the folks across the border and leave us alone.

that is what they have tried to do. will that end up putting them? it may or it may not -- will that end up buying them? -- biting thtem? it may or may not. >> what with that choice look like? -- what would that choice look like? what would our situation look like if we chose to end or significantly reduced the relationship? how do you withdraw from afghanistan? >> the drawdown in afghanistan is set for the next couple of years. there was some strong opposition to it particularly among some of the republicans who thought it was a mistake to set these dates in order to focus the

afghan government on its responsibility and promote the chances of success because it is the taking of responsibility of their own security, an army in afghanistan which is more effective and larger. its is the best hope of defeating the taliban in afghanistan. that is not your question. >> what does it look like -- >> in afghanistan? >> in afghanistan and pakistan. what does policy look like without help? >> much more difficult without pakistan's help. it is not possible. it would be much more difficult. a much smaller number of u.s. troops and support of the continuing support of an afghan

army that is stronger and better equipped, better trained, better led. hopefully with a government that is moving in the right direction to end corruption, there is nothing that we can guarantee. only if they can do that themselves. i think it is in their own self interest as they respond to the needs of their people that more effectively than they have. that is a matter of very clear self interest on the part of any government including the afghan government. so the next major decision in terms of our presence will be the long term strategic relationship which is now being discussed and negotiated and also the way in which the reduction of our troops will continue. at what pace, between the end of next year when all of our

forces, all the additional 33,000 forces will have been removed, and the reduction of the 70,000 forces that would be left after the removal of the 33,000 forces. that would take place between 2012 and 2014 when the turnover responsibility for the whole country would take place. that does not mean all of the 70,000 troops would be removed by any stretch of the imagination and does not determine the pace of the removal during that time. those are issues that need to be resolved through negotiations. it is really important for a number of reasons that it occur. the afghan army is the only national entity that is respected. you have an enemy that you detest.

those two elements, an afghan army that has got public support and an enemy that is hated it should be able to be enough if that army is strong enough and well equipped enough to provide security. but again, it will be up to that government. >> you are saying that our afghan military presence will become our fourth hold against pakistan. if we make good on that threat -- is it an empty threat? knowing that security and afghanistan is an extremely depending, that if it becomes an unembarrassed support for those networks but let happen becomes more of a matter of policy for them.

how messy does that look? is the u.s. really ready to follow through on that threat. >> what do we do about the haqqanis? how do we address the cross- border threat now? there, we have begun to use drones successfully against some haqqani leaders. appropriately. if this report is accurate, because i am not allowed to say things that are still classified. it can have a real effect. secondly, we have under international law the right to respond to attacks by artillery. i think we will. if we listen to the report of what the secretary of state said yesterday in pakistan, fairly soon, we will see a more direct response or effective

response and a stronger response to those attacks across the border against us. her words yesterday were pretty clear, that the international effort to squeeze the haqqani network on both sides of the border "will be more apparent that that is ahead." the fact that you have this a visit by our officials to pakistan yesterday is the indicator of a clear statement, first of all. i hope that the pakistanis will see that it is not acceptable for them to be a safe haven for attacks on us. secondly, i think it is a statement to them that we have

the international right to respond to attacks from their country across the border, and that we intend to do so. >> time to open it up to questions. wait for the microphone, and introduce yourself, name and affiliation. we should of close to a half hour. standing in the far back. >> thank you very much. we have nine hours of live broadcast between pakistan and afghanistan. my question is given the tension and distrust between islamabad and kabul, washington it is expected to withdraw complete by 2014.

thank you. >> you are asking what does the u.s. -- >> what is expecting when it withdraws troops from afghanistan? >> what will be the role of islamabad -- >> what washington is expecting of islamabad given the tension and distrust. >> i think it is the same thing as what we expect now. number one, that their country will not be used as a safe haven. number two, that they will not interfere with the efforts of a three integration of the taliban to end their attacks on troops and government and citizens inside afghanistan. and hopefully play a constructive role in those discussions. they obviously have an interest. that is not the issue. pakistan clearly has an interest in what goes on in

afghanistan because it can have an effect on them. from their view, it has an impact in terms of their security. so there are going to play a role and will play a role. the role that we are not going to accept is the role of the obstructing those discussions which can take many forms. one of the forms it has taken is not permitting taliban living in pakistan but who are afghanis to go back to afghanistan to participate in those discussions. the want to control the discussions, the negotiations,

and they are not going to be able to do that. can they control them? they are not going to be able to control them. it is not acceptable that they frustrate them taking place. i do not see 2014 as being a point of change between our expectations of what we expect from islamabad. i just do not see that. things will change in 2014 in terms of the security control in afghanistan and us becoming much less of a security force in afghanistan. id will not be the end of our presence. that will be negotiated. it will be far reduced from the number of troops that we have now and far reduced from that

70,000 level that we will have at the end of next year. >> in the four wrote. -- front row. >> thank you. i wanted to change tack a little and ask you about the subject that was probably keeping you on the senate floor last night, our current budget situation. military leaders have spoken out about agencies because they recognize the value of preventive action because it is far less expensive to engage around the world instead of military terms. as we find ourselves as a result of the budget control act under a security cap where the budget has pitted against the department of defense as we have decreasing resources to work with, i am curious as to what your thoughts are as how we get a mixed right between investment through civilian agencies and our military during times of the increase in resources?

>> number one, recognizing the importance of those efforts that you referred to. they can not be shortchanged. i thought secretary gates was a spectacular in the area cannot recognizing the importance of those activities outside the defense department -- in that area, recognizing the importance of those activities outside the defense department. this will be determined by revenues. that is the battle. i know it is being fought right now, whether or not the republicans are going to be able to move away from the rigid, ideologically driven position which is at the tea party position which is so far dominating the republican party in this era, that they're not be any additional revenue. in the absence of additional

revenue, those of across-the- board cuts take place in the the defense area, and that is going to be the battleground. so what will determine the level of support for the areas that you have a major concern in and rightly so will not be the relationship between funding between the defense through the economic support, the state department support, and those other programs. it will be whether or not the republicans see that you cannot do serious deficit reduction without additional revenues. you cannot do it. the only way you can do it is by decimating programs across the board in a-, irrational way where the triggers pulled are then implemented without any

prioritization. just one other thought about that is that the -- i believe it at that. my answers have been too long. i look at my staff back there. hey, brent. >> thank you for that powerful and comprehensive statement. there is one element of the relationship with pakistan which you alluded to but i was like a little more, and that is pakistan's attitude toward the united states and feeling abandoned in the 1990's. that is not the first time they have felt abandoned by the u.s. it is happened two or three

times. we are right in their reliance on the haqqanis as its regular -- irregular forces. now we are telling them they are your enemy, and that is correct. we are saying go after them now, and by the way in two years, we are out of their. that seems to me this is the background of that relationship. how do we convince them that this time we are not going to leave them? that we are not going to abandon pakistan again? >> first of all, we have made some serious mistakes relevant to pakistan. one of them had to do with some planes which we sold to them and did not deliver them. i do not know -- i do not claim to be courageous at the time.

i would have to go back and look at my own votes. whether i met the test of courage or not is not the point of. i thought it was just terribly wrong for us to be selling them something and then not delivering a while we are hanging onto their money. that has recently been corrected. also, we are not leaving the area of. your question i think contains both questions about are we leaving afghanistan. we are not going to do either. if pakistan gives us that choice of losing an allied if we continue to speak the truth about the relationship of pakistan and their isi to the events across the border, if we continue to speak the truth, we got to protect our troops. if the price of that is making

our relationship with pakistan much more difficult, as chairman of the armed services committee, i have to tell you that i do not love that choice. but that is the choice. we are going to choose our troops. we have to choose our troops. we are going to continue to try where we can with the interests are mutual to work with the pakistanis. we are not leaving the area. i do not know if they want us in the area or out of it. i think they are ambivalent. was a they want us in or out, we are going to reduce our presence. but we are not leaving

afghanistan anymore than we are going to abandon our efforts to have a decent relationship with pakistan. >> in the middle there. >> thank you. retired state department. are we going to compel pakistan to change its behavior? i think it can be argued that however wrong-headed the pakistani behavior is, many pakistanis believe the haqqani is giving them a strategic presence in afghanistan, the instrument to a long-term ability to play a role, and however wrong this is, it is

clearly a very strong held belief among certain pakistanis. set against that, the threat of losing the u.s. as an allied will only strengthen the belief that it is important to do that. that is a very powerful thing to try to overcome however wrong they may be. we can send drones against the haqqani. are we going to send troops into the area? how are we going to make them change their tune? the more we squeeze them, the more they believe they have to have that strategic presence.

>> how do you push a change in behavior? >> you cannot force them to do anything. i think there has been too much u.s. arrogance over the ages about our trying to dominate or decide. they are going to act in their self interest. we have to, number one, persuade them hopefully as to what their self interest is. hopefully they will see it as a normalized relationships with the u.s. and see that that is in their self interest. then we also have to be clear and honest that we will act in our self-interest as well. we are going to protect our troops. under international law, we can do that. i think we should do that. artillery being fired across the border is not going to be responded to is wrong. it is going to be responded to. we are not simply going to have artillery coming in from pakistan and not respond.

the response can be done in the number of ways. i do not think people are talking about sending troops into pakistan, but the use of drones has been effective and there is also the use of a counter-artillery. i agree that you cannot force pakistan and the idea that we can do that and some of the rhetoric that implies that we can do that i think plays into the hands of those who are extremists. i think some of that rhetoric, the dominating rhetoric not just with pakistan but other parts of the world. is so important that we acted in an international community at our back and with us to avoid that use of the rhetoric of domination which is too often characterized and used by the terrorists against us, saying that america wants to take over afghanistan. that is the rhetoric that is used against us.

id has to be their self interest that we appeal to, and it has to be our self interest which we must pursue as well and not act as though as we are somehow older than thou. we believe that our self interest is the interest that people in this world impart, that the values are values in which move this world in the right direction. that has to be at the core of our interests, the values that we pursue. because they have a tremendous, powerful effect around the

world. >> many of the things you have said about pakistan remind me what was said about saudi arabia. that behavior did not change until 2004 when these attacks started targeting the saudi oil family. when you speak of pakistan, do they need an attack that truly threatens them? that shows them that they have to take us seriously? >> attacks from terrorism? they have lost tens of thousands of people from terrorism. a prime minister from terrorism. >> that truly threatens their power. what breaks through that mentality? >> what breaks through, i think,

is for them to see what terror has on them and even though at the moment they think piece from the haqqanis in terms of the threat from them that is not necessarily a lasting. and the value of the relationship of with the u.s. is a real value to them. we have to make it a real value to them. >> here in the fourth row. >> thank you. my question is about education issues. the secretary will go to japan and hold a meeting in tokyo. what do you expect the meeting

about the progress of -- >> what location? >> stem relocation issue. >> is it marine location? >> [unintelligible] >> okinawa. senator webb and i recently went to open now well on this issue, to japan, on this question of our basis in okinawa. it is a major problem that has been festering for a long time. id is not the presence of troops in okinawa. is the fact that there is an over-presence that is creating a real problem because it is too heavy of the present.

-- heavy of presence. physically, it is taken over huge chunks of the island that are populated. we are welcome. they like us. they want us there. but we have to find a new place to base our marines. the new location up north is unreal. it is far too costly. it is not going to happen. we have to be honest. id is not going to happen. we have to find a different path to relocate some of our marines from that facility where they currently are. there are some suggestions that we have made to the pentagon. i would hope that secretary leon panetta and i think you were referring to his visit to japan will tell the japanese we are very close allies.

whatever we are going to do, we are going to do to get their. this will not be a unilateral shift of the u.s. we have a plan that is unworkable. it is simply too expensive. we ought to be honest with each other. for some reason, it is difficult politically and i am not sure why. i do not know why it is difficult politically to say that we agreed on a plan. hey, it is not working. let's change the planned. there is a sensitivity. who goes first? this is an ally facing a common problem. it is not such a problem. people are trying to solve the location problem of the marine's. number one, we should deal with it frankly, together, not unilaterally, and be honest about the impossibility of our current plan.

>> the gentleman in front here. >> senator, based on your long experience and six visits, what do you say is a possibility or how do you see of the possibility of persuading the pakistanis to come along our way. when we were dealing with the soviet union into the arms control business, we knew we could not force them to do anything but we found a certain pressure points that we could

apply. what pressure points do we have to apply against pakistan to come along, persuade them to come our way? >> if they see the relationship between us and them as a plus, either economically or militarily, that relationship cannot be normal as long as their land is used as a base of attack against us and the afghans and the coalition. that is number one. number two, there is a significant amount of support that we provide which is in jeopardy because of this threat from their territory against our troops. that support is on hold essentially. there are different forms of. in general, the kind of financial support is on hold because you cannot have a relationship where we are

supporting a country that is actively as well as passively both helping to kill our troops. our troops are being killed by folks who have a safe haven in pakistan. when the government will not even speak out against that let alone take them on which makes it impossible for us to continue the economic and military financial support in a normal way it. that has been put on hold by the administration. ultimately, it will be their own self interest, the perception of whether or not they can distinguish between the terrorists who attacked them that they obviously go after and the terrorists who attacked their neighbors.

if they think they can be safe from a threat from that kind of terrorist, i think they are wrong but they will have to make that judgment themselves. >> there is time for two more questions. the gentle man in the second row. today's event has been on the record. >> mike costa, recent retiree. >> we miss you. >> very nice to see you. >> this must be a sign of the times. not a single question on iraq. the ultimate numbers next year will probably be diminished from the numbers that some had anticipated. is there anything you can tell us about how that negotiation is going now?

in the best guess on to win the defense authorization bill will be on the floor? >> the first answer is easier than the second. [laughter] amazing to be able to say that a question about iraq is an easier question to handle then the defense authorization bill. that is the situation in the u.s. senate. in terms of a iraq, apparently the discussions continue. i think we should make a clear that there is a finite point where we have to say, ok, this is not going to work and we are going to pull our forces out including the trainers that we are willing to keep their, providing that we can protect them from being covered by -- been prosecuted under an iraqi

law. we will not allow our troops to be put in that situation. that is the sticking point apparently. i do not think it is a good idea for us to be pleading with iraq to ask us for troops to stay. we have been in the position -- it looks as though that we are hoping that they are going to be making this request and we are hoping that certain elements of their political world will join in the government requests. will some of the shi'ite groups join in on the requests. we should not be pleading them to ask us. i do not like to be in that position. providing we are not in combat, that we are there for training purposes for a limited number of troops. we ought to give them a clear deadline on its.

i am glad that we are pulling out almost all of our troops. by the way, for my republican friends who criticized president obama for setting deadlines in afghanistan which he was wise to do for the reasons i mentioned, this deadline in iraq was a president bush deadline for the record. i did not want to end on a partisan note. the second question, the sticking point is if there is language in that bill relative to the handling of detainees as to whether their detention will be by the military or civilian authorities. whether or not federal courts are going to be available for the trials of terrorist it. last night, we defeated an effort that was almost totally

partisan to deny prosecutors the use of federal courts for terrorist it. we defeated that effort. two republicans joined to say that we ought to be able to use our federal courts to try terrorists. that issue was resolved last night. but the issue that is holding up the defense authorization bill is not a matter whether federal courts will be available for the trial of terrorists. the issue that is holding up the bill is who will detained and whether or not terrorists must be detained by the military or whether or not civilians can continue as they have in the past to detain terrorists and to interrogate terrorists.

we worked out a compromise that i will not go into which i thought was a fair compromise which has language in there that the administration does not like which sets categories of affairs of what the al-qaeda and people affiliated with al-qaeda must go through the military detention system. they do not like that. they wrote in a waiver so they can waive that. the administration is apparently not satisfied with that weaver and that think has mischaracterized it. i know there is a reporter in the room that wrote a story today or last night where the administration has inaccurately characterized our bipartisan

language in our bill which contains that flavor for the president contending that language that he does not like and that is the holdup. the majority leader indicated to the white house that he is going to try to get that language out of the bill. that is the dilemma that we are now in. you ought to have a question that we can end on a positive note. >> policy template for removing nasty dictatorship. a lot to discuss in a short amount of time. thank you very much, senator levin. [applause] and indulging my many questions. i am pleased to announce next wednesday, october 26, a conversation with the, don general u.s. marine corps. thank you very much for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2011] >> no child left behind. respond to a capitol hill reporter about the impending bill. >> this is a national staff

writer with the "washington post" and she covered the session this week. why do they want to change the node child left behind a lot? -- law. >> for the first time, states were required to test their kids and have them work every year to meet certain goals. but teachers have complained that the goals are unrealistic and the sanctions, if they do not reach those goals, are draconian. there was pressure to change the law. >> what did they accomplish in

their markups session this week? >> a serious retrenchment of the federal government in classrooms. they do not have to set achievement targets for the kids. they have to test them every year but do not have to meet any goals or face any penalties if the kids are not learning what educators think they should be learning. the senator wanted some sort of teacher evaluation measure in there. he wanted to be able to tell good teachers from bad pictures and read -- bad teachers. only 5% of the country's worst performing schools will face some kind of a federal oversight. the lowest of the los, the truck

up factor, -- lowest of the lows, a drop-out factor, but most are hands off. >> what has the obama administration done to the original law fax >> they were frustrated because it should of been reauthorize four years ago in congress did not act. there is pressure from the state saying we cannot work with this law. it is unable to help us. obama directed the secretary of education to issue waivers to states to relieve them from some of the burdens of the law. to date we have the 39 states and puerto rico and d.c. that want out. the senate decided they not want to be on the sidelines.

that is why we saw all of this action of the sudden after a quarter years of inaction. >> how likely is this new education measure likely to be approved by congress during this session? >> that is a good question. it is hard to tell. the leadership wanted to do a reform of this law. only one of the bills passed the house floor. i do not know how committed they are to take on the comprehensive rewrite. we will have to see what happens in conference, if this one gets passed on the senate floor. we will find out. >> you can read her articles on washingtonpost.com. >> next, virginia and congressman frank wolf.

then the impact of gasoline prices. >> watched our live coverage the iowa faith in freedom coalition starting at a summit of p.m. eastern on saturday -- starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern on saturday, "rode to the white house. well -- road to the white house." and for the student cam contest check c-span.org.

>> here is a guest from "washington journal."

ñ?